Archivist's note: This document was originally at, but has vanished from that site, and is archived here to ensure its continued availability. Some hyperlinks to no-longer-available image files have been removed, and some broken/outdated links fixed. Please note that Christopher Browne has an additional copy, at

Linux Myth Dispeller

By "">[name redacted at author's request]

There are plenty of Linux (and Unix) myths that have been creeping around the Internet, presenting a danger to the growth of Linux and its eventual overtake of Windows, DOS, and Macintosh. To prevent such a tragedy, I attempt to dispel many of the myths that plague Linux's reputation. Based on what I have seen in on-line newspapers, magazines, newsgroups, and on the Web, I have compiled a list of false-myths about Linux, and I explain where (if at all) these myths are based, and what the facts are. For general Linux information, see or the Linux Documentation Project.

Additional Myths
I'm sure there are myths I haven't mentioned here. If you think one needs to be listed, please e-mail me.

Table of Contents

Installation & Setup

There are probably the worst myths about Linux for its installation & setup. While Linux can be made to have a challenging installation & setup, most distributions take care of it for you.

Linux is a nightmare to install

I installed Linux in less than an hour, and was up and running. The installation can be handled manually, in which case it may take a while (this would be copying each file set, and unpacking them by hand). However, nearly every distribution has an installation program that mealy prompts you for what to install, and some basic settings, then does all the work for you. After getting a Linux CD, you'll probably be up and running within an hour. In the olden days, this has been true, and Linux can be made hard to install.

Setting up Linux requires hours of time, and can only be done by experts

This myth is perpetuated by the fact that Linux is so customizable. Changing, recompiling, and other modifications that can only be done under Unix systems and not under Windows makes Linux an operating system that can be configured to do and be just about anything. When you install most Linux distributions, the OS is every bit as setup as Windows 95 or Mac System. The catch is, Windows 95 and Mac System have a limited set of changes you can make. Experts of course can reconfigure more, such as rewriting some of the utilities, but everyday users are perfectly capable of configuring standard usage settings.

After you install Linux, you still don't have any everyday software

To some extent, this can be said about any operating system. Saying, however, that Linux has less install-time software than Mac System or Windows, is laughable. Linux distributions comes with all the development software, Internet software (besides Netscape), and system-related software you'll need. While Linux does come with games, some office-related software, however, those do leave something to be desired, but no more than Mac System or Windows. Because Linux is really a full Unix, it comes with everything you'd seen in a a standard Unix build, too.

The System

The Linux system and kernel are very powerful. Of all the fictional Linux myths, these are probably the most untrue.

Linux multitasks only as well as Windows or Mac

Microsoft and Apple would have you believe that their operating systems multitask (run more than one program at once). Using the term loosely, they do. Using the term strictly, they task-switch only. Although more than one program may be opened, you may notice that sometimes the system stops responding -- perhaps while mounting (detecting) a CD, or scanning a floppy drive. That's because of cooperative multitasking, as opposed to Linux's preemptive multitasking. A cooperative multitasker (such as Mac System or Windows) will give a program control of the system until the program chooses to give it back. Therefore, when a program is taking a while on a specific procedure, it can hang up the system, and deny other programs operating time. In a preemptive multitasker, a program is given a set number of clock cycles, then it is preempted, and another program has the system for a set number of clock cycles. Linux is preemptive through and through. Mac System has absolutely nothing preemptive about it (although Apple claims the new OS will be partially preemptive). Windows 3.1 has a preemptive mouse only. Windows 95 is partially preemptive. Between Apple and Microsoft, their only fully preemptive multitasker is Windows NT.

Linux is slow

A few DOS programs that act as their own OS may do some things faster than their Linux counterparts. This is simply because they aren't being multitasked by the system. Other than that, Linux tends to be faster. One operating system that does operations comparable to Linux is NT. Linux is well over twice as fast as NT. Mac System is consistently slower, as are most Windows programs.

Linux crashes frequently

Hardware is often ignored by other operating systems. On the other hand, Linux takes advantage of all the hardware it can. Sometimes, if you have defective hardware that other operating systems don't take advantage of, Linux will crash. This is to be expected. Claiming an OS should remain stable when your memory doesn't retain information is unrealistic. A properly set up Linux system that is running on good hardware will nearly never crash. This is because, if the operating system doesn't bring itself down, nothing will. Programs can never crash the system under Linux, because of the way it's built with things like memory protection, instruction monitoring, and other devices built into any true kernel. For example, in Linux, the "General Protection Fault" error can be triggered only if your computer's memory is simply not keeping its information (in which case, you should return it to the factory).

Linux does not support threads

Does it ever! Linux supports fully preemptive threads for all programs and scripts that request it! The simple truth is, Linux has better threading than Windows 95 or NT's threads, and Mac System and Windows don't have threads if they aren't managed by the program or a third-party library.

The Linux operating system is to huge too be practical

There are two ways an operating system can be big. In hard drive space, and in memory. DOS is always going to be smaller than Linux. If you think DOS is the operating system of the future, enjoy its compact design. Windows, on the other hand, is terribly bloated. While Windows 95 and Linux take up similar amounts of hard-drive space, Linux has much more packed into the disk space used. Installations designed for desktop users run around 100 megs, with all the toys, gadgets, utilities, and development software -- Internet servers, the same. In memory, Windows 95 takes up obscene amounts of memory, enough to make a kernel programmer dizzy. Although the Windows 95 box says 4 megs, the OS can't even fit itself in 4 megs, and gets swapped in and out, without any programs running. Linux, on the other hand, with all its power, takes up about 1/4 of the memory Windows 95 does. Alas, NT takes up more memory than any other operating system to date, and Mac System's usage is comparable to 3.1's, which takes up about as much as Linux.

Linux is hard to network

For Mac, it's AppleTalk. For Novell, it's IPX. For Windows, it's a mystery. For the Internet, it's TCP/IP. Linux supports them all. As you may know, TCP/IP (the Internet protocol family) is the best networking protocol, and is native to Unix. It is also native to Linux. Networking Linux can be done in one weekend (assuming you do have network cards), with some reading, testing, and setting up. Connecting it to the Internet takes about 10 minutes. Networking always has some stigma to it, but Linux is certainly no worse than other operating systems.

Linux is an insecure operating system

Generally, Unix-like systems have a reputation of being insecure. Linux compares very well to other Unixes, due to its open status. Another myth about open OSes in general is that they are insecure, which is based on the thought that its weeknesses are exposed in its source code. However, when its code is readily obtainable, more experts are likely to download it and report its bugs. On the other hand, with a closed system like Rhapsody or Windows NT, only crackers ("hackers") actually reverse engineer the code to exploit its security issues. Time has proven this thoery: Remember when the Netscape bug was discovered by a student? How likely is it that the bug would have been exposed, if he weren't able to download the security-related source and inspect it. There are a growing number of Linux-based ISPs and Web servers, and very few cracking incidents have happened on these. Research information regard security at .

Software & Development

Software, and the development of it, is great under Linux. The myths here are nearly as bad as the installation & setup myths.

There is no office software, or software at all for Linux

Most Linux distributions come with a huge collection of software, certainly more than you'd find in Windows or MacOS. Office softare, Linux does not come with much of. There's some to download, which compares very well to lousy Mac and Windows office software like Works (except with full justify <g>). Just like on a Macintosh or Windows software, you can spend large amounts of money for commercial office suits. ApplixWare, Star Office and others come with the features of MS Office, but tend to run cleaner and faster. Because for many users, non-"copylefted" software is offensive, Linux also has a vast collection of freeware programs.

Here are a few software resources...

Here is a few of my favorite programs that didn't come with my distribution... There are of course more, but I'm not here to list the programs I use.

Linux software is hard to use Unix-left overs

A lot of the Unix software for Linux does have a learning curve. The other more modern Linux software is often for the X Window System (the GUI), and is very easy to use and learn. Older Unix software may take some time to learn, but, after it is learned, is more productive than Macintosh, and similar to Windows-level productivity. Newer Linux software shows respect for older software standards for fast usage, and combines those tools with modern styles to make software easy to learn.

Linux doesn't support Java

Just like any other modern Unix, Linux supports Java applications with kernel integration to the interpreter, compiles Java applications and applets, and has Java-enabled Web browsers (such as Netscape). Here is some information on Java and Linux:

Linux is impossible to develop for

When you get Linux, you get tons of great compilers (including GCC & G++). Most distributions include a program called Window Programming Environment (WPE), which provides a programming environment with custom syntax-highlighting, compiling, and everything else an IDE should have. The operating system also provides libraries that you must normally program yourself (including sound, graphics, and more). This myth is totally ungrounded, and is really pretty silly.


Linux usability has never been better. Nevertheless, these myths constantly bombard the brilliant Linux user interfaces.

There is no GUI for Linux

But there is! There is -- the X Window System. Its drivers have been ported to Intel x86, and it's great! Although the interface isn't as standardized as Mac or Windows, I'd say it's still better. Some of the widgets are super, and it's a very fast interface. The myth that Linux has no GUI is made by those who are ignorant enough to beleive that an ISP's Unix shell is as far as Unix extends to.

Linux's command prompt is worse than DOS's

Linux, like Unix, lets you choose your command prompt. There's bash and tcsh, which are both clones of various Unix shells. A better statement may be that Linux's command prompts are like DOS's on steroids: They support redirection operators, scripts, and command prompt functions! If you don't like the power of these shells, you can use lsh, a shell that looks, acts, and feels like DOS! So, if you view power as bad, Linux is "worse."

Linux doesn't support graphicial networking

For Windows and Mac users, their ISPs' Unix shell is the full extent of Unix. The fact is, just like those text mode shells, Linux support graphical X Window System shells for terminal machines. Unix machines have had this for about a decade, Linux has had it for years, and just now NT is getting into it.

The Linux desktop is klunky and unattractive

Sometimes, Mac and (even more) Windows users have a bad experience with an X Window System, and never seem to get over it. All you have to do to learn that one's user interface is a personal preference is to listen to a Mac vs. Windows spam-debate on Usenet. With X, most aspects of the interface are so configurable, the user can get his or her desktop to look and feel just about like anything, without opening any source files.

A couple screenshots of X desktops...


It's safe to say Linux is the most compatible operating system ever. The compatibility myths are fueled by those who believe Windows is the only operating system that is compatible, and therefore by default Linux must not be compatible with other standards.

Linux is PC-exclusive

Linux was created on a PC running Minix, a smaller Unix clone. While it is most popular on the x86 PC, the Linux kernel has been ported to Power Mac hardware, Sparc workstations, DEC machines, and more.

Linux only supports Linux executables

Natively, Linux supports Minix, System V, a.out, and ELF executable formats. In beta now, Linux supports Java execitables (J-code). Most Linux distributions come with DOSemu, a DOS emulator -- not to mention these fine Linux emulation programs... (information taken from Linux Applications and Utitities):

Other operating systems don't run well with Linux

Not only is Linux friendly to other operating systems on the same drive (not messing up their partitions, ect), it uses their file systems, and includes utilities to help have more than one OS. Linux's LILO will load Linux, DOS/Win95, OS/2, and more. Its file mapping and mounting allows you to use other file systems, such as DOS's FAT16 (with Windows 95 long filenames), OS/2's HPFS file system, Minix's and others. Even you don't have other operating systems, Linux has emulators to let you run programs that aren't even made for Linux.

Standard file formats are not accepted by Linux

What file formats are and aren't supported is really up the applications. Linux applications support as many file formats, if not more than other platforms. When a programmer is going to create an application, he or she will have to decide what file formats to support. In the Linux free software community, there is a wealth of shared and static libraries that the programmer can use to support many file formats. Windows and Mac libraries programmers usually have to pay obscene amounts of money for such things, and are less likely to buy them. Also, since many Linux programs are truly free, and come with their source code, other users add file formats to existing applications. For example, look at what the text editor Emacs supports extra toys for!

Questions and comments? Email me.

Copyright © 1997 [name redacted at author's request]
This document may be mirrored, redistributed, and reformatted so long as its content remains intact. Copyright holder reserves the right to change copyright provisions without notice.

Copyright © 1997 [name redacted at author's request] Questions? Comments? Email [name redacted at author's request]/a>.