But the more I look in to Linux, the less appealing it actually seems. For example,
here is an article giving 20 reasons why you should switch to Linux yet I go through that list and many of the points it's listing as a plus I either don't care about or see as an active minus.
Yes. Some of the points are valid and some are not.
In the following, I use the word Linux in its most general sense as an operating system that uses the Linux kernel. RMS would want me to say Gnu/Linux everywhere, but the Gnu user land is not the whole of a modern Linux distro.
Linux is free - as in beer
It's only free if your time has no value. Windows also has a cost, in time but the actual operating system is likely to have been bundled with the PC you bought. Yes, there's lots of free software you can run on Linux, but quite a lot of it is also available on PCs.
Software repositories
This one makes me smile. Each distributor tends to have a software repository. You don't have to use them, but if you do, your life is easier, and if you are not an expert, you are effectively locked i to what the distributor thinks you should want. The same people who extol the virtues of software repos on Linux also often bemoan the alleged lock in from the Mac App store.
Live CDs
Are rubbish.
Except for dipping a toe in the water except that they don't really give you a representative view of a properly installed OS. They are, however, very useful for recovering borked Linux installs such as the one I had to recover when our sys admin used the wrong editor on the config file for the password access module.
Rapid evolution
This is not necessarily a good thing. You just get used to the user interface and, in the next release, they change it. The article jokes about upside down menus, but things like this (but usually less extreme) do happen occasionally with Linux distros. People don't like change for change's sake and why should they?
Linux is free - as in speech.
Undeniably good - if you are a programmer. If you don't know how to write code and don't have the resources to pay somebody to write code, it's hard to see what tangible advantages Linux has over Windows and OS X.
Powerful shell
I believe there is a free powerful shell for Windows too, if you need it. The most common option for a powerful shell for Linux (there are several, which is a Good Thing) turned out to have an itsy bits massive security hole.
Multiple desktops
Yes, this is good. I believe Windows 10 is finally going to have a feature that's been in Linux for ages and OS X for at least five years.
Independent distributions
Interesting language in this one:
Software evolves because the distros only include what they feel is the best or most appropriate.
This means "the independent distributors know what's best for you!" Hmmm.
Drivers included
The fact that it is the driver vendors and not Microsoft who write drivers for Windows has no bearing on the fact that more hardware is supported for Windows.
Runs on any platform
What do you care about that? As long as it runs on your PC.
No commercial deadlines
Really? Red Hat and Ubuntu don't have commercial deadlines? Hmmm
Interoperability
This one is mostly true as long as you are not talking about things like MS Office or Photoshop or most games.
Community support
Isn't all it's cracked up to be. Sometimes you get good support, sometimes you get a snotty answer like "go read the code". On the other hand, you might have a mate down the street who can fix your Windows problems.
Any colour you like, except brown
That's an outrageous lie. Of course you can have brown.
Security
Windows security is not bolted on afterwards. The NT kernel was designed from the ground up with security in mind and its security model is superior to that of Linux. The Linux security model is pretty much the same as the original Unix model which was considered agricultural when it was new. Sure, it's possible to bolt on some modern features like ACLs afterwards...
There have also been some fairly major security problems in Free Software recently. The recently discovered Shellshock vulnerability, the previous Heartbleed bug. If you want an example of how the Linux distro model can foul things up, look at the Debian SSL bug caused by a distro maintainer making changes to software he didn't understand.
Lack of malware
This is true, although, as with OS X it is probably a function of the OS's relative lack of popularity.
Thousands of programs included
This is true.
No reinstallations
This might be true. I've never kept a distro around long enough to find out.
