Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Growled

Linux vs Windows

224 posts in this topic

Yes, there is commercial software on Linux. There is commercial software and open source software on every OS. No doubt about that. However, the entire idea being pushed to the masses is that Linux and other FOSS software are some how better because you have the code in hand and this is not true at all. None of this is a stereo type, it's been pushed by the Linux and FOSS community for years.

Let me guess, you have just used Linux recently over the past few years. Nothing I wrote was a stereo type, it's really not. You are not living in reality.

I started using computers back in 1982 and I know what FOSS is and I know the licenses and I know what has been pushed by the FOSS community and also Richard.

I have been using Unix since 1994 from Washington University. I am not a newbie dude.

It does not matter when you started using computers, it does not make what you are saying any less absurd. Everything you wrote is a stereotype and/or a gross generalization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does not matter when you started using computers, it does not make what you are saying any less absurd. Everything you wrote is a stereotype and/or a gross generalization.

For years many people would point out the reason why Linux was better than anything else was because the code was available and you can take that code and add what you want to it.

So, now things have changed?

I guess if what you have said is true than the FOSS advocates and zealots have moved somewhere else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is mostly true. I am sure I can think of more, but it can also be hard to find open source equivalents to some commercial programs.

Photoshop vs Gimp

Microsoft Office vs Open Office

MacOS X vs Linux

Windows 7 vs Linux

any commercial program vs Audacity

quickbooks vs everything

I agree with you if you are talking about a narrow amount of professionals who use these products to make their living. However, for most average users, better is subjective. Photoshop might be better, but it's not $700 better just to tweak a home photo now and then. I use Excel at work for advanced spreadsheets and it's worth the price to me, but to the secretary down the hall it's nearly worthless. And it's not worth the price for my home use, since I use a spreadsheet to keep track of my home inventory and my bill paying. 

 

If something is better depends on it's usage. I use mostly free at home ( as a hobbyist) and make it just fine. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you if you are talking about a narrow amount of professionals who use these products to make their living. However, for most average users, better is subjective. Photoshop might be better, but it's not $700 better just to tweak a home photo now and then. I use Excel at work for advanced spreadsheets and it's worth the price to me, but to the secretary down the hall it's nearly worthless. And it's not worth the price for my home use, since I use a spreadsheet to keep track of my home inventory and my bill paying. 

 

If something is better depends on it's usage. I use mostly free at home ( as a hobbyist) and make it just fine.

Im not doing this to provoke you or anything but I really want to know your defense against those two points:

1: Why compare the install and update time between a 3 year old operating system vs a 2 month old one?

2: Where is a source that has realiable and undisputed proof of there being a backdoor in Windows?

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is mostly true. I am sure I can think of more, but it can also be hard to find open source equivalents to some commercial programs.

Photoshop vs Gimp

Microsoft Office vs Open Office

MacOS X vs Linux

Windows 7 vs Linux

any commercial program vs Audacity

quickbooks vs everything

I am sure you can give me very small amounts of cases where the other is true. I am not talking about other things like JavaScript apps. I am talking about comparing commercial programs to their open source counterparts.

I am not a Richard Stallman fan. Sure, I admire that he went to Harvard and then later on to MIT, but the man is totally wacked out. I believe he is too unrealistic in his approach to FOSS.

 

I can't take you seriously if you think Windows or OS X are intrinsically better than a random GNU/Linux distro. I think we have clearly established that these cannot be compared.

 

You strike me as generalizing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, whilst I believe Linux has its place, it's not ready to be a primary desktop OS as yet. No distro is ready - that's why I only use Linux in a VM. And many of the 'free' software that comes with Linux is crappy, to be honest, and having all of that downloaded and installed by default is something I hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, whilst I believe Linux has its place, it's not ready to be a primary desktop OS as yet. No distro is ready - that's why I only use Linux in a VM. And many of the 'free' software that comes with Linux is crappy, to be honest, and having all of that downloaded and installed by default is something I hate.

Well I'm not touching most of that, for me it's not ready but I know plenty of people who are quite happy with it as their desktop OS and I'm sure you're going to be hearing about it in this thread soon, but there are distros that you build up from a core OS instead of tearing down an everything-plus-three-forks-of-kitchen-sink install, or they provide detailed options during the installation so you can weed out stuff you don't want. I'm the same way with Windows.. I avoid pre-built systems like the plague but if I do get one the first thing that happens is it gets erased. You can keep your crapware/trials/etc thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm not touching most of that, for me it's not ready but I know plenty of people who are quite happy with it as their desktop OS and I'm sure you're going to be hearing about it in this thread soon, but there are distros that you build up from a core OS instead of tearing down an everything-plus-three-forks-of-kitchen-sink install, or they provide detailed options during the installation so you can weed out stuff you don't want. I'm the same way with Windows.. I avoid pre-built systems like the plague but if I do get one the first thing that happens is it gets erased. You can keep your crapware/trials/etc thanks.

There are many folks that are quite happy with Linux distributions, and as a desktop OS.  However, when put on the spot, the reasons given are typically as un-objective (subjective, in other words) as any commercial OS - including commercial Linux distributions, such as RedHat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).  When it gets down to brass tacks, all OS choice for individual use is subjective - not objective; it's why non-enterprise OS usage is as splintered as it is, and especially among Linux distributions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, whilst I believe Linux has its place, it's not ready to be a primary desktop OS as yet. No distro is ready - that's why I only use Linux in a VM. And many of the 'free' software that comes with Linux is crappy, to be honest, and having all of that downloaded and installed by default is something I hate.

It's more than ready for me. The programs that I use in Windows are the same programs that I use in Linux. I don't need Office or Adobe CS at home. I can get by rather nicely with native tools. I even rip DVDs in Linux. To each their own, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOP500

 

Linux - 476
Windows - 3

All Top 10 places are Linux based.

 

A supercomputer is usually headless worker machine and requires specialized changes to the operating system... obviously they're going to be running an OS/kernel that can be recompiled with certain optimizations. What's your point? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's your point? 

This is a Linux vs Windows thread. :D

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a Linux vs Windows thread. :D

By your own first post, it's a Linux vs Windows on a consumer desktop thread... being on a phone or supercomputer really doesn't have anything to do with it, it's an entirely different application of the software running on different hardware and an entirely different set of needs being served. Just because a supercomputer might be running Windows HPC doesn't mean it'd make a great desktop OS either.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

f you consider NetApplications' data set, then Linux owns only about 1 percent of the desktop OS market and Windows has almost 92 percent. But if you consider all computing platforms, including mobile, than Windows has only 20 percent and Linux has 42 percent - and that would be in the form of Google's Android alone.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/linux-windows-microsoft-android-ios,20220.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, different hardware and different application of the software, never mind it's the Linux kernel, you're not running KDE on your phone and I can't automagically run Android software on my Linux desktop, a virtual machine of some sort is still required. You got the unofficial x86 port of Android of course, but you're still locked into the Android desktop, you can't bring over Linux software and go on your merry way. It's not the same thing.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2013431/10-reasons-to-choose-ubuntu-12-10-over-windows-8.html

 


Both Microsoft and Canonical have received considerable flak for the default user interfaces in their respective OSs. In Microsoft's case, of course, it's the Modern UI, formerly known as Metro; in Canonical's case, it's Unity. Both are designed with touchscreens in mind, and borrow heavily from the mobile world.

 

By removing the Start button and overhauling the way users interact with the operating system, Windows 8's Modern interface poses a considerable challenge for users, who face a significant learning curve.

 

Unity, on the other hand, became a default part of Ubuntu back in April 2011 with Ubuntu 11.04 ?Natty Narwhal.? It has definitely undergone growing pains, but more than a year has passed, and Canonical has revised the interface accordingly. Although it still has numerous critics, most people concede that it has matured and improved. Some observers, in fact, have even suggested that it may feel more familiar to many longtime Windows users than does Windows 8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm probably in the minority but I (mostly) like where Unity's going, second favorite behind KDE. Like it much better over that train wreck that is Gnome 3, makes Win 8 look good. (And yea, that's opinion.) Big question mark about the display server though.

But that said, meh, it's a non-issue for both. Both are different than what people were used to but both are also stupidly easy to pick up, I'd give it to Windows 8 there though as once you spend 10 seconds to see that little intro, you still got same software, same desktop, etc as you had before, just a different set of menus.. 10 seconds to customize it and you'd have a desktop with zero learning curve while the clueless new Unity user is still trying in vain to move the taskbar to the bottom or navigate (or even customize) the Unity menu.. the dash and hidden menus alone can be confusing.. "where's the f'ing file menu?!?" Both can also have their look and feel radically changed rather easily. Also some of these authors tend to forget that Windows has been able to change shells to something completely difference since, well, forever.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me, too.I like unity.I find it productive especially, the hood.I used to like KDE before.

I think because I like to be keyboard dependent with no mouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've honestly only tried Ubuntu on my crappy (legacy graphics card with no 3D) desktop but I didn't care much for it. I prefer lite weight on it anyway since I do a lot of video and graphics work. I might have a different opinion if I tried Ubuntu on my laptop. But Unity really annoys me from my time spent with it. The HUD seems fine but I'm really more of a mouse guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yeah, because Windows has to do upgrade 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, wherein Linux, can skip from nothing to 5. There is less to update, too. As Linux doesn't have all these security holes.

Yes it does.  Linux is by FAR the easiest system to hack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it does.  Linux is by FAR the easiest system to hack.

 

I guess that might depend on the situation (eg. software running on it). As a broad statement though, pwn2own seems to disagree with that (at least up to the last year it was part of the contest), and so does the pwnium contest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it does.  Linux is by FAR the easiest system to hack.

 

With backtrack, you can do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main reason most supercomputers use Linux is simple: Licensing for Windows is prohibitively expensive for machines with a lot of physical CPUs, and access to the code makes it easier to manipulate it to those needs. Supercomputers are very specialised, they don't represent normal usage.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.