[cortman]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

There are lots of reasons to NOT run Linux.

Whoa, first off, my aim was not at all to start a flame war here.
@Katsunami- if you read the post I quoted, and what the poster is lamenting about losing in Windows you will understand that my recommendation of Linux specifically addresses those laments. I would prefer for people to run Linux (from both a pragmatic and philosophical standpoint), however I am happy for anyone to run what works best for them.
A lot of your perceptions about Linux (as I understand them from your post) especially regarding software are a bit dated; certainly it was the case when many FOSS applications could not compete with their nonfree Windows/Mac alternatives, but that is becoming increasingly uncommon.

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Let's face it: you can get good software in many categories for Linux. LibreOffice may not be Microsoft Office, but it certainly performs the task beyond many people's capabilities. The same can be said for graphics design. It may not be professional grade, but the tools still perform the task beyond the capabilities of most users. Of course, Linux is also on par with Windows for many software categories. That ranges from general use (e.g. web browsers) to specialized applications (e.g. software development).

Choosing the OS first in those cases may make sense for some users. If cost is a constraint, you don't have to worry about buying a license for Linux or most of the software that runs under Linux. Put another way, you don't feel compelled to buy Photoshop (or even Photoshop Elements) just because of its branding. You don't feel compelled to buy Microsoft Office just because of its branding. You don't feel compelled to buy Visual Studio just because of its branding. License restrictions are also another thing that you don't have to fret over. You can legally run Linux, LibreOffice, GIMP, Eclipse, etc. on every computer that you own. You can also do so without a second thought. You also don't have to be concerned with the restrictions placed on the use of cheaper home editions of software, such as Microsoft Office or Visual Studio Express.

Well put, and I would add to that list of benefits- no EULAs. This is a huge deal in my opinion; I don't have to worry about misusing software and getting in trouble for it, or agreeing to some buried point that transfers ownership of my eternal soul to the software company.

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Actually, they kinda do both. If I recall correctly, the distribution of RHEL is restricted based upon proprietary components (mostly trademarked materials and such). So if you want to use RHEL, you have to pay up or wait for the release of something like Centos.

RHEL sells both the system and the support; CentOS is the community clone of RHEL (Community Enterprise OS).