why is Linux as an OS more popular with the hacker community than MS?

[noblegas]

I would think that MS would be the more popular OS amongst the hacker "community" rather than Linux since MS supposed to have more security flaws than a linux OS and hackers like to find solutions to computer security flaws.

[hazel]

That depends on what you call a "hacker". In the Linux community, "hacker" has mostly kept its original sense of a compulsive solver of problems. Such people love Linux because you can understand and control it completely.

But many people nowadays use "hacker" to mean someone who breaks into other people's computers with nefarious intent. These people should correctly be called "crackers" on an analogy with safecrackers. And this type of "hacker" certainly does prefer Windows because Linux is so hard to crack.

[elija]

Way back before the tabloids decided it sounded better than cracker, a hack was an inventive solution to a problem, thus a hacker was one who created an inventive solution to a problem. To my mind, that is still what it means and yes, I bore people by using the term cracker and explaining in detail why

[sml156]

Windows is more popular with hackers (black hats) lol

[MASONTX]

I'm no hacker, cracker, or whatever, just a guy who wants a system that is inexpensive and works. Linux is not only free, it just plain works, and when a problem does occur you can use a terminal to get to the kernal and set it straight. In windows, it breaks routinely, you have to wait for MS to come out with a fix, it costs a lot, and even when you buy a copy, you can't just switch it to a new computer. MS treats it's customers like criminals and assumes that anytime you change components you are trying to illegally pirate the OS. The main reasons boil down to: 1) It works and doesn't break easily 2) it's free

[soundroom]

I'm no hacker, cracker, or whatever, just a guy who wants a system that is inexpensive and works. Linux is not only free, it just plain works, and when a problem does occur you can use a terminal to get to the kernal and set it straight. In windows, it breaks routinely, you have to wait for MS to come out with a fix, it costs a lot, and even when you buy a copy, you can't just switch it to a new computer. MS treats it's customers like criminals and assumes that anytime you change components you are trying to illegally pirate the OS. The main reasons boil down to: 1) It works and doesn't break easily 2) it's free

I completely agree with you... As a computer user, I want a system that can run my stuff with MY way, a system which is clean, safe, if it isn't free with a really low cost, with a big variety of free software...and quick (in comparison with MS) OS Upgrades.

[MASONTX]

A good example of why I like linux. My machine boots and is ready to use in 41 seconds. In contrast, I had a document I needed to print off a windows machine that had been shutdown for the day, and while I didn't time it, I thinking the computer must be broke, before it came up to a usable desktop. Then I had to load the word program, another long (in comparison to linux) wait. I found the document I needed and sent it to the printer. It took so long to start printing, that I hit the power button on the printer thinking they had shut it down too. In linux I would have been done in maybe 2 minutes starting from an off machine, in Windows Vista, it seemed to take f o r e v e r. I've got my wife using ubuntu on her laptop, now if I can just get her to put it on her desktop.

[oz]

Way back before the tabloids decided it sounded better than cracker, a hack was an inventive solution to a problem, thus a hacker was one who created an inventive solution to a problem. To my mind, that is still what it means and yes, I bore people by using the term cracker and explaining in detail why

Agreed... I don't like allowing the news media and tabloids to change the meaning of computer terms just so that they better suit their own purpose, so I too refuse to use "hacker" in the sense they want us to. Better accuracy in reporting would be a better option, at least in own my opinion.

[Iwuvnix]

M$ is less functional, limits people and what they can do with their systems. Wants to charge for something every time you turn around when you can get better for free. Basically assuming someone who could realistically be considered a hacker actually knows a bit about computers. Anyone who knows a bit about computers, knows M$ blows chunks.

[rm-rf]

Well because a lot of hackers have grown up with linux/unix systems and the command line. Windows has made a few innovations (if you want to call them that), they made an easy way to create gui programs, but they don't have a very strong command line. Not just that but windows was originally only meant to demonstrate a new idea (the gui), then Microsoft bought it, and told the world that windows makes computers easy. After that it took over the desktop market (and once something is on top in the desktop market, it becomes very hard to overcome it), meanwhile Linux and Unix have remained built to be usable at their very core.