Linux vs Windows

[Aergan]

Something we can all agree on: ###### printers.

 

I don't care if it's a Linux disto, Microsoft Windows, *NIX, *BSD, OS/2, OSX, iOS - printers are always a pain in the ass.

[f0rk_b0mb]

More popular? Where? I still see Macs and PCs with Windows sold at stores and online. I still only see Windows and Mac apps sold at stores and online. I still only see third party companies support OSX and Windows. 

 

So OEM's aren't selling computers with Linux on them? Canonical didn't raise 6 million dollars in 3 days for their Ubuntu phone? Steam didn't come to linux and Origin isn't in the works? Oh and I bet you think the Crytek developers are porting over the Cryengine just for kicks and giggles. Linux is getting bigger and more popular every year.

[Dot Matrix]

So OEM's aren't selling computers with Linux on them? Canonical didn't raise 6 million dollars in 3 days for their Ubuntu phone? Steam didn't come to linux and Origin isn't in the works? Oh and I bet you think the Crytek developers are porting over the Cryengine just for kicks and giggles. Linux is getting bigger and more popular every year.

 

And who exactly uses it? No one.

[guitmz]

And who exactly uses it? No one.

 

I use it. Your argument is invalid! LOL

 

Seriously now, people don't use because they seem "affraid". Just now we hired a PHP developer who never touched linux in his ######ing life and he's using elementary os for 2 days and already can do several things in terminal for example and he's loving it. You just need to dive into the idea.

[yowanvista]

One major annoyance with Linux distros is that a simple kernel upgrade might screw your entire system, not to mention the fragmented APIs and the lack of binary compatibility among distros. You might want to check this. Linux is simply a huge pile of software maintained by people who don't have a clue how together towards a common goal, it simply contains too much rubbish obsolete parts with improper software implementations resulting in poor functionality (e.g no audio mixer). X11 for instance needs to go, of course Wayland will be adopted but some lazy developers think that their own custom display server (Mir) is way better.

[f0rk_b0mb]

And who exactly uses it? No one.

 

I use it too. The government uses it. Did you check the weather today? That data is crunched by Linux supercomputers. NASA uses it. The American and the London stock exchange use it.

 

Now who uses Windows 8? The people who got it for cheap and fanboys like you. Is it used on any mission critical systems? Nope.

One major annoyance with Linux distros is that a simple kernel upgrade might screw your entire system, not to mention the fragmented APIs and the lack of binary compatibility among distros. You might want to check this. Linux is simply a huge pile of software maintained by people who don't have a clue how together towards a common goal, it simply contains too much rubbish obsolete parts with improper software implementations resulting in poor functionality (e.g no audio mixer). X11 for instance needs to go, of course Wayland will be adopted but some lazy developers think that their own custom display server (Mir) is way better.

 

What do you mean? We have audio mixers if I'm understanding correctly?

[Evolution]

I'd 

 

I use it too. The government uses it. Did you check the weather today? That data is crunched by Linux supercomputers. NASA uses it. The American and the London stock exchange use it.

 

Now who uses Windows 8? The people who got it for cheap and fanboys like you. Is it used on any mission critical systems? Nope.

 

What do you mean? We have audio mixers if I'm understanding correctly?

Aren't most mission critical systems using Unix instead of Linux?

[notchinese]

Interesting thread. I've been a Windows user for about 20 years, but am in the process of switching over to Linux. Why? Sure, I have had some issues with Windows 7 and 8. Of course, no operating system is flawless. Even Linux-based ones. I create full disk images daily, so not that big of a deal. For me, it was more of a philosophical thing.

 

Windows & Macs = Profit is king.

Linux = Community-based. Donations are certainly welcomed, but that's not the overriding concern. Canonical is a possible exception, I am discovering.

 

Anyway, after playing around with Ubuntu and Mint, which like so many distros are based on Debian, http://futurist.se/gldt/, I just decided to simply go with Debian itself. Slackware & Red Hat and their offshoots are beyond my skill level and appear more geared for businesses. Anyway, my needs aren't that great, and I've had no problem finding programs that allow me to get things done. I'm like,  "Do I really need Word or Photoshop?" Honestly, no.

 

Sorry for rambling on here. It's just feels cool to be a part of something, as opposed to being a dollar sign. Use whatever works for your needs. For me, though, Linux just 'feels' right and the transition has been quite liberating. :)

 

PS. I will say this: For what it's worth, I never even considered leaving Windows until Windows 8.

 

So instead of installing 1 free program to remove all traces of Metro you completely switch operating systems? 

[nfiniti9]

Can you list some of the things that Ubuntu lacks?

I've been running Linux for months on my server and it has never screwed up.

 

DX10, Quite a few all-in-one dont work (esp business models with accounting), and easy way to configure 3+ button mice.  The list could go on.  I do like linux and use it in quite a few VM's but thats just not a good argument.  Linux is not a direct replacement for windows.

[ShadowMajestic]

I'd 

 

Aren't most mission critical systems using Unix instead of Linux?

Only if you have the money. Much runs on a stripped down 'custom' Linux. A lot of internet critical hardware runs IBM's OS. Often Linux or NT have to much overhead and aren't nearly as stable as these optimized OS's.

 

This is why Linux web hosting is also faster than Windows. There are less updates and less components to install while security is updated automatically which gives Linux also the advantage of being more secure. A comparison can be found at www.weloveourhost.com/linux-windows.html

Contact major webhosters that run Linux. Usually when a system is setup, it is not touched again unless absolutely necessary. 

But in Linux's defense, many sysadmins for Windows follow this practice too.

Personally the amount of not updated Linux far outweighs unupdated Windows and lately this is mostly Ubuntu... still wonder why anyone would run a Linux Unstable distro as a server :s)

[Max Norris]

This is why Linux web hosting is also faster than Windows. There are less updates and less components to install while security is updated automatically which gives Linux also the advantage of being more secure. A comparison can be found at www.weloveourhost.com/linux-windows.html

Anecdotal. Both operating systems require updates to stay secure, and both have automatic update capabilities.. if the OS doesn't update then both are that much more prone to security problems. Linux being more secure is entirely a myth, especially when it comes to web servers, just look at any tech news site, the things get hacked rather frequently.

As far as performance goes... that depends on what the server is doing. You'll find benchmarks favoring both sides of the argument depending on what's being done and what server platform is being used. I can throw Rails on a Windows box, see the performance isn't quite as good as the Linux version and claim "ZOMG Windows sucks." Then I can do the exact same thing in reverse with ASP on Linux, "ZOMG Linux sucks." Pick the right tool for the job. You can pretty much run anything on both operating systems, but obviously one platform will do better than the other depending on the software involved.

[Mindovermaster Moderator]

But Linux requires way less restarts than Windows does, therefore it is better for uptime.

[Max Norris]

But Linux requires way less restarts than Windows does, therefore it is better for uptime.

If the kernel gets updated, it requires a restart, with very few exceptions and if you're willing to pay for it. Windows Servers obviously need restarts too when something in the core OS gets updated, but it's nowhere near as frequent as with the desktop versions. Regardless of the OS, if the servers in question get updated, they'll need a restart too. Both will have brief downtime if the sysadmins stay up to date with updates, it's unavoidable, and any differences in restart time is going to be negligible. Of course you can go the "never going to update" route and claim zero downtime on both OS's too, assuming you want to roll the dice with a hacker.

[f0rk_b0mb]

I'd 

 

Aren't most mission critical systems using Unix instead of Linux?

 

No. http://www.unixmen.com/linux-share-in-supercomputer-os/

[Mindovermaster Moderator]

Yea, kernel updates, that is the only time when it restarts Linux. Windows, on the otherhand, has much more software that requires a restart.

[Max Norris]

Yea, kernel updates, that is the only time when it restarts Linux. Windows, on the otherhand, has much more software that requires a restart.

Yes, again that's on the desktop version, it's a lot less frequent on the Server editions which doesn't have a lot of the components that the desktop versions have, updating the core of the OS will require a full restart on both operating systems. And again, if Apache, Nginx, IIS, SQL services, etc or whatever gets updated, you got to restart those services as well. Just like Windows. Regardless of if you're rebooting Windows or Linux, restarting IIS or Apache, The downtime difference is going to be insignificant.

[Mindovermaster Moderator]

I remember reading this article: http://starhoster.com/notices/announcements/linux-vs-windows-servers-who-has-the-best-web-hosting-technology/

 

 

Reliability and Stability

Windows servers have less reliability than their Linux equivalent.  With an average of 9 hours of downtime per year, Windows servers are more likely to go offline than Linux servers.  Windows blamed their long downtime on server software updates and maintenance of the system.  Changes on Windows server configuration require a reboot of the system, causing inevitable increase in downtime.

On the other hand, Linux systems are the hands down winner in reliability.  In fact, users graded Linux with a 90+ percent reliability rating.  Unlike Windows, Linux Systems generally do not require a reboot with every configuration change.  Linux also handles multi-tier processes with much better stability than Windows.  This has reduced Linux downtime to just 30 minutes per year (up to 36% less than Windows).

[Max Norris]

I remember reading this article: http://starhoster.com/notices/announcements/linux-vs-windows-servers-who-has-the-best-web-hosting-technology/

Wow, some serious misinformation in that article. Server configuration changes require a restart? Windows doesn't have a proper permissions system? (Seriously? Windows has if anything a more robust permission system, never mind group policy, etc.. any Windows sysadmin with half a clue knows how to properly lock it down.) Pretty much insinuates Linux can't suffer from malware? Really wouldn't mind seeing some sources on that downtime statistics as well.

Note that I'm not advocating Windows is the better server, as personally a few exceptions aside (ASP.NET mainly) I prefer Unix or Linux by far myself, but I seriously detest misinformation just to prove a point.

[Andre S. Veteran]

Linux desktop market share is insignificant - it's hovered around 1% for the past decade and continues on this merry trend. I'm well aware that Linux is highly successful and relevant in many areas, but it's getting pretty ridiculous to argue that it's somehow going to make a breakthrough on the desktop. That argument has been made every year since the inception of desktop of Linux and has always turned out to be false. Every time Microsoft releases an unpopular version of Windows it's always the same; it's going to be the year of Linux! Most market share loss goes to Mac anyway - and comes back to Windows once Microsoft releases a better version. This happened with Vista/7; same will go with 8/whatever polished successor of 8 gets the public's favor.

[ViperAFK]

Linux desktop market share is insignificant - it's hovered around 1% for the past decade and continues on this merry trend. I'm well aware that Linux is highly successful and relevant in many areas, but it's getting pretty ridiculous to argue that it's somehow going to make a breakthrough on the desktop. That argument has been made every year since the inception of desktop of Linux and has always turned out to be false. Every time Microsoft releases an unpopular version of Windows it's always the same; it's going to be the year of Linux! Most market share loss goes to Mac anyway - and comes back to Windows once Microsoft releases a better version. This happened with Vista/7; same will go with 8/whatever polished successor of 8 gets the public's favor.

Its naive to think there will ever be a magical "year of the linux desktop", but its just as naive to think linux will never achieve any kind of breakthrough on the desktop just because of its current market share. Linux is currently getting better 3rd party support than its ever had and things are only getting better.

[Dot Matrix]

I use it too. The government uses it. Did you check the weather today? That data is crunched by Linux supercomputers. NASA uses it. The American and the London stock exchange use it.

 

Now who uses Windows 8? The people who got it for cheap and fanboys like you. Is it used on any mission critical systems? Nope.

 

What do you mean? We have audio mixers if I'm understanding correctly?

 

 

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking consumers.

[f0rk_b0mb]

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking consumers.

 

You're really comparing apples to oranges here. Linux is geared towards tech savvy people, and always will be. I don't care what Mint and Ubuntu are doing, they will always serve as the "gateway drug" to Linux for tech savvy people. Windows and OS X have always been marketed to the masses. Love it or hate it, Microsoft and Apple aren't going anywhere over night and users will buy what they want. For the tech savvy crowd, IMO, Linux is becoming a better platform everyday compared to what Microsoft and Apple are currently doing. IMO, Linux companies (Novell, Canonical, Blue Systems, etc.) are the ones that are truly innovating and making what they have better and easier.    

[Gerowen]

I haven't bothered reading most of the replies yet because having been on the internet for a day or two, I know all it consists of is infighting e-penis comparison.  In response to the OP though, that's one of the reasons I switched to Linux exclusively years ago, on top of the ethical reasons and the ease of customization that comes with an open source system.  It was a moment of anger one time when I was trying to show something to a friend of mine, rebooted and had to say, "Well sorry, let's go watch a movie or something." so I got ****ed and nuked Windows from the hard drive on all my computers.  I got tired of doing a restart after installing a game or something, not realizing or remembering that updates were in the process of downloading, and having to stare at "Windows is Configuring Updates, Stage 1 of 3, Please Wait..." for sometimes over an hour.

[LaP]

Can you list some of the things that Ubuntu lacks?

I've been running Linux for months on my server and it has never screwed up.

 

Don't waste your time. It's neowin.

 

As long as you don't play games or don't need a particular pro software Linux is a fine os. It got a big library of open source apps. Some of then are actually really good.

 

It's not hard to install for anyone who know the basis of computers.

 

And yes Windows Updates can be a pain in the ***.

[adrynalyne]

I could have installed Mint 13 which is based on Ubuntu LTS 12.04 and I would have seen many more updates, but it wouldn't have have taken nearly as long as Windows to install them. Windows has/had a big problem with updates in Windows 7 taking so long to install, at least on the machines I've installed Windows 7 on. Still, this was just my experience installing the two systems side by side. Anyone that doesn't like it or doesn't agree with me is free to do their own experiment and post their results. :)

Again, Windows 7 has been out since 2009, and 12.04 was released in 2012....

 

Maybe compare 10.04.

I use it too. The government uses it. Did you check the weather today? That data is crunched by Linux supercomputers. NASA uses it. The American and the London stock exchange use it.

 

Now who uses Windows 8? The people who got it for cheap and fanboys like you. Is it used on any mission critical systems? Nope.

 

What do you mean? We have audio mixers if I'm understanding correctly?

 

While there may be a lot of businesses and organizations using GNU/Linux, I urge you to find how many are using the latest version of the distro chosen.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the numbers are similar to how many organizations use Windows 8.