Linux.com

I'm sorry you're having difficulties. But, yes, it is well-worth the effort.

It's hard to make the process any easier than a free download of a single file. An .iso image file is a common, well-supported ISO (International Standardization Organization) format that makes it a good choice (open, free, well-documented). Burning a CD from an image file is a basic function that any CD burning software should be able to perform, though I have encountered that the stripped-down versions distributed for free with many new PCs don't support it without upgrading to the paid versions. Free versions of Windows software that can perform this function may have their own faults too. That's unfortunate, but you'll encounter much better choices in Linux. K3B (in Linux) is the best burning software I have ever used - clearly at least equal to full versions of Nero or Roxio I have on Win PCs.

What hardware are you using? Many distros should work well on anything recent, but if you are using older hardware or have less common peripherals, you may need to use specific versions or add some configuration steps. This is true of Windows or Mac as well.

You needn't 'wipe' your hard drive between Linux installation attempts, since the partitioning and formatting during installation eliminate any remnants of prior attempts. Perhaps by junk you mean the Windows software? Again, the failures of software distributed for Windows shouldn't put you off the alternatives, but drive you toward them instead.

Try CDburnerXP pro. (http://cdburnerxp.se/) I have used this without issue on a few Dell PCs since the Dell-supplied software couldn't burn iso files, as you describe. I didn't find any extras included with it, and it's homepage states there should be none. Sometimes free is "cheap and marginally functional" and sometimes free is "same thing without cost". Of course "the best things in life are free".

OpenOffice doesn't have all the features of MS Office or Corel Office (yet), but for most users its plenty. The others have their faults too. How much better should a pay version be to justify the cost? Maybe $50 could be worth it, but $300-500? How many such programs does your work require for other tasks? If you have employees (or PCs for your family), multiply that. Then compare it to the repositories from major Linux distros where you can click off 100s of programs for free for many tasks. And you get free maintenance and ugrades for life too.

Encountering problems can be frustrating, but you'll find the results well-worth the investment once you overcome them. The open-source movement of software development has many advantages over the old corporate closed-source model, and consumers will reap large rewards by transitioning to these products. Many companies and governments are switching. Software is becoming a commodity without cost, and service and support are the future profit areas (hardware, of course, is always profitable). MS is now behind and scrambling to find a way to survive in the that new IT market. Their monopoly has hurt the market more than most realize. Commercial versions of specialty software will remain viable, but there's plenty of global support for the common basics users rely on 90% of the time, including the OS.

You can only rely on MS as long as your cash keeps flowing to them. They can always push an upgrade on you, like Vista or Office2007 if you stay locked-in.

So, yes, the reward is well worth the effort. Keep your questions coming and we'll try to help you see the light.
[Modified by: Bob on July 25, 2008 11:00 AM]

[Modified by: Bob on July 25, 2008 11:02 AM]

[Modified by: Bob on July 25, 2008 11:04 AM]