Linux vs Windows

[sanctified Veteran]

  That is my point.  In a lot of cases (not all), you can make a better product with money.  Not only are you helping people feed themselves and their families, you are also building something that can be higher quality.  If you get someone that knows how to build the correct environment and testing environment and having "code reviews" for security.  Having resources + Proper coding procedures + Money = Win for everyone.

 

  Remember, that FOSS says that your code can be more secure because there are more eyes looking at the code, but unfortunately that is a myth.  The reason is that many people can look through code and not know either what they are looking for or they can miss something like you did.  They can find some things if it's obvious, but code a lot of times isn't easy to follow in the first place. 

 

Your logic is flawed. Just because not everyone can understand the code does not mean it's useless that it's open. The values imprinted in the FOSS community; openness, collaboration, community, experimentation; make us trust those that can read the code and declare it safe, even if there are not many. The meaningful event here is the transparency of work. This is not an unrealistic expectation, those values exist and operate through FOSS, it's an ethical stance: I prefer to adhere myself and respect those values than choosing a more convenient software solution.

 

Also, I think you ignore that you can monetize your work even if its free. Just ask companies like Oracle, OPENRAW, or Red Hat.

 

The rest of your points are subjective at best. You cannot talk about GUIs on Linux because they are so modular that ANY gui paradigm can me created or recreated here. What we have now is a series of GUI-base frameworks that include a set of standard tools that can be replaced at any moment. A wingpanel-like task manager with a totally invisible keyboard based windows manager. A hardware accelerated WM with a dock like panel. Any file manager you want.

[Yogurtmaster]

Your logic is flawed. Just because not everyone can understand the code does not mean it's useless that it's open. The values imprinted in the FOSS community; openness, collaboration, community, experimentation; make us trust those that can read the code and declare it safe, even if there are not many. The meaningful event here is the transparency of work. This is not an unrealistic expectation, those values exist and operate through FOSS, it's an ethical stance: I prefer to adhere myself and respect those values than choosing a more convenient software solution.

I didn't say having the source code is useless, that was you. It is very overly optimistic pie-in-the-sky thinking.

Openness and collaboration in the FOSS community isn't magic and it doesn't necessarily make better code.

Also, I think you ignore that you can monetize your work even if its free. Just ask companies like Oracle, OPENRAW, or Red Hat.

yeah, but I still believe for most things closed paid source is a better product. I have seen it over and over and over again.

It is a very consistent practice. I would rather pay for VMware than free Virtual Box for example or Photoshop to Gimp, or Microsoft Office compared to Libre office.

The rest of your points are subjective at best. You cannot talk about GUIs on Linux because they are so modular that ANY gui paradigm can me created or recreated here. What we have now is a series of GUI-base frameworks that include a set of standard tools that can be replaced at any moment. A wingpanel-like task manager with a totally invisible keyboard based windows manager. A hardware accelerated WM with a dock like panel. Any file manager you want.

GUI's can change for any OS. I think it's extremely strange that you think this is a Linux only feature. The fact is commercial products USUALLY have better UI, no doubt about it.

Most of the Interfaces for Linux come from the 1990's and the file managers as well. It's all great if we still lived in the 1990's.

I suppose that you aren't really in for progress. Well we can't all live in the 1990's forever.

[Max Norris]

Good point, one of the best Windows features. Linux still doesn't have something like it.

Gnome uses a registry like system, it's pretty obvious where the inspiration came from, although I question the choice to do something like that when everything else is conf-file based.. I like consistency. I personally prefer the registry myself, so much easier than chasing down text files scattered throughout the file system using different layouts (sucked in 1980, still sucks now), and it uses a consistent API. Everything can be managed from one central program, even from different machines if configured to do so.. love MMC, huge timesaver. It's somewhat self defeating though when programs don't have to use it, and you're still occasionally stuck chasing down files. Of course a possible point of major failure too if it implodes... haven't had that happen in over a decade (XP...) but it's possible. Just personal opinion of course, both systems have their drawbacks too.

 

Your logic is flawed. Just because not everyone can understand the code does not mean it's useless that it's open. The values imprinted in the FOSS community; openness, collaboration, community, experimentation; make us trust those that can read the code and declare it safe, even if there are not many.

There's also the practical upshoot of being open source.. dead projects can be revived. Wouldn't be the first time that I've used a program and the developers gave up on it or went out of business, never to be updated again. FOSS doesn't guarantee that obviously, somebody has to step up and take over, but at least the option is there instead of disappearing into obscurity.

 

2) Stop trying to do everything from the command line. In a modern OS a command line should be optional. If you want to run scripts you can use a beautiful 21st century IDE with full debugging abilities and quick type functions so you get work done faster. :) wooo hooo!

Most of your points I somewhat agree with.. but not this one. If there's one thing I love about *Nix, it's the console and terminal capabilities. Yea, I can do an SSH server on Windows, but it's fairly useless when there's a small handful of tools available to actually take advantage of it, never mind a number of tools use direct screen writing and play very badly with a terminal emulator. The console itself is weak as hell (yay lets make it work like 1990's DOS), PowerShell is a huge improvement but still falls apart once you go outside the box. Windows RDP is miles ahead of what's available on Linux but there's a lot of situations where it's just not practical. Using your IDE example, when I'm fooling around with Python, I'm using PyCharm on my Windows desktop and I don't even have Python installed. It's on a Linux server which is doing all the work. I can directly interact with the interpreter remotely, I can even drop into a Bash shell right in the IDE, no tabbing out to something else. That's all thanks to the Linux console. As much as I love VS2012, it doesn't do anything like this. I can even connect with my phone and still manage the entire system. Since everything can be done from the console, you can script the living hell out things, saves a huge amount of time versus having to do it manually. Linux's console is a huge asset, probably the one thing I really wish Windows did better.

[Knife Party]

I don't really care about that.   I just have some reservations about this magic freedom that FOSS is all about.

 

There are a lot of assumptions made...

 

1) That you can even can or want to compile code

2) That you can add anything of value to the code

3) The code that you can add might have been done by someone else and you just re-invented the wheel

4) Without some checks and balances like code reviews things can break or be unsecure

5) A lot of people working on FOSS projects don't work together and form a goal, that is why there are so many distros and forks

6) A lot of people working on FOSS projects quit for one reason or the other, less time or arguments or whatever.

7) Paying people can a lot of times (not all of the times) with standards output better code (this may not be consistent, true, but it's more often true than not true).

 

   I used to love FOSS more than I do now.   However, working in an environment with standard coding tools and standard techniques I can now see that it's not the dream that a lot of people think it is.

I am not trying to be a Debbie downer here.  Trying to take unrealistic expectations and tame them. 

 

  I once wanted to buy a BBS (Bulletin Board System) for Atari computer (130XE) called Carina II.  This was in the old days before the Internet.  My plan was to use FOSS and give it away to make better stuff.

Of course someone out bid me and you can download it free today if you search the Internet.   However, I have changed a lot.

 

  So, to kind of make this short and sweet.  I still like FOSS and I think it can do some good things, but some people treat FOSS unrealistically.  Just because you have the freedom to use code, doesn't mean it's going to turn out the way that you think it will.

 

I think you're fairly misguided or misinformed as to the nature of Linux. Linux is packed with great amounts of functionality, no one ever claimed "its magical" or can do "Everything". It a community based effort, where a business model doesn't dictate the quality or state of software you can try. People have to understand that many distros don't have massive financial backing, hence not everything can be relevant, look at X.org and graphic drivers... its a complete mess most of the time. Also, i cannot for the love of god figure out why some people still think command line = anti consumerist. The command line is extremely logical, easy and navigation to understand. Sure it takes  a bit of effort, by many users can pick up its lingo and ways to give more power back to the user. Claiming that using the command line is non compatible with using a modern OS is like saying, who needs or has the use for math anymore? Linux comes with both, options, so I just don't understand why people are constantly crying about it. In the end when you think about it, the various communities are welcoming, vibrant and they give you the chance to use free quality software...... things they spent hours on maintaining, building and distributing .... yet I still see people find a way to b%tch about that.... The propriety way of thinking about software very much a culture ' give give give', 'take take take'.... very very people really think about the work, logic and planning that goes into putting together from simple software to a complete distro. When i load up Mint, or debian I think 'very how lucky am I now'.... sure there are some niggles, but me ungrateful? nope. I can see the potential and i can see the community behind these software projects, this is what its all about. Business models around software has shown time and time again how it erodes the core values and philosophy which it was built on.

[+DonC Subscriber²]

I liked this thread for a while and then the sanctimony surfaced.

 

You guys need to get a wiki.

[Max Norris]

things they spent hours on maintaining, building and distributing .... yet I still see people find a way to b%tch about that.... The propriety way of thinking about software very much a culture ' give give give', 'take take take'....

Yea you'll see that a lot. I'd probably think it's people are just so used to dealing commercial software, which you do have the right to bitch about since you're a paying customer and all. People tend to forget this isn't some big company and an army of paid programmers behind most of the Linux software, it's usually just a bunch of guys who love what they're doing. It's not my personal choice for a desktop, I prefer Windows there with Linux behind the scenes in a server aspect (they come together very well this way for me) but gotta give a lot of respect for the guys behind it.. surprised some don't give up just because of the sheer volume of crap that gets slung their way. I get end users liking it or not due to preference, I get corporate developers bad mouthing it (business is business) but some people just seem to go out of their way to be an ass about it. It's just software man.. pick one and move on, don't need to preach/bash at the top of your lungs about it.

[Yogurtmaster]

I think you're fairly misguided or misinformed as to the nature of Linux. Linux is packed with great amounts of functionality, no one ever claimed "its magical" or can do "Everything". It a community based effort, where a business model doesn't dictate the quality or state of software you can try. People have to understand that many distros don't have massive financial backing, hence not everything can be relevant, look at X.org and graphic drivers... its a complete mess most of the time. Also, i cannot for the love of god figure out why some people still think command line = anti consumerist. The command line is extremely logical, easy and navigation to understand. Sure it takes  a bit of effort, by many users can pick up its lingo and ways to give more power back to the user. Claiming that using the command line is non compatible with using a modern OS is like saying, who needs or has the use for math anymore? Linux comes with both, options, so I just don't understand why people are constantly crying about it. In the end when you think about it, the various communities are welcoming, vibrant and they give you the chance to use free quality software...... things they spent hours on maintaining, building and distributing .... yet I still see people find a way to b%tch about that.... The propriety way of thinking about software very much a culture ' give give give', 'take take take'.... very very people really think about the work, logic and planning that goes into putting together from simple software to a complete distro. When i load up Mint, or debian I think 'very how lucky am I now'.... sure there are some niggles, but me ungrateful? nope. I can see the potential and i can see the community behind these software projects, this is what its all about. Business models around software has shown time and time again how it erodes the core values and philosophy which it was built on.

You know why that there hasn't been a Linux desktop, Tablet OS, or Phone OS that can compete because of this non-sense. You are not understanding. You are stuck in your own world. The command line isn't magic, it's a poor reputation of the past. I started on command line before the MSDOS days back on my Atari using SpartaDos X. The command line should be obsolete as you can write scripts in an OS with a real IDE.

I have used the following...

SpartaDos 3.2d

SpartaDos X

MSDOS

Many, many Linux Terminals and wrote one small Bash program

PowerShell 2

I have used most of them and to be honest it's all just old computing trying to stay relevant. At least Powershell has an IDE and modern HTML and Excel.

PowerShell can build UI natively....

In the end it's all just old computer crap and still from the 1980's.

Linux is secure and easy to update and that is about it. Everything else is from the 1990's. I even find that case sensitivity a relic from the past as well.

Moving to the future? Nah, just visiting Unix from the past.

[+DonC Subscriber²]

I really agree with Kaboose's last reply (annoyingly I cannot quote posts in Internet Explorer right now :crazy:)

 

People use computers for different reasons.  Some people like to tinker, some people just want to produce content, some people just want to browse the web.  Just because GNU/Linux might not fit your purpose doesn't mean it's bad.  GNU/Linux is a community effort that brings together a lot of good quality software and also a lot of bad quality software.  The point is that you find stuff that works for you and you get on - just like you do with Windows or OSX.

 

I agree that Open Office is an awful piece of software if you're looking to replace Microsoft Office.  So what?  Use Windows natively or in a VM, use wine or whatever.  You are allowed to like more than one OS!

[Yogurtmaster]

I really agree with Kaboose's last reply (annoyingly I cannot quote posts in Internet Explorer right now :crazy:)

 

People use computers for different reasons.  Some people like to tinker, some people just want to produce content, some people just want to browse the web.  Just because GNU/Linux might not fit your purpose doesn't mean it's bad.  GNU/Linux is a community effort that brings together a lot of good quality software and also a lot of bad quality software.  The point is that you find stuff that works for you and you get on - just like you do with Windows or OSX.

 

I agree that Open Office is an awful piece of software if you're looking to replace Microsoft Office.  So what?  Use Windows natively or in a VM, use wine or whatever.  You are allowed to like more than one OS!

I use Linux all of the time for different reasons. Many people think it's like this magic solution that solves all of your problems and I am just pointing out the truth of the situation.

I just feel there is a lot of time wasted in things that just won't change anything.

To give you an example of what I mean about the FOSS community is that we as a company got burned when I worked at an ISP. My administrator used a FOSS email client on the web that had security holes and functionality issues. What happened is that the FOSS community just left the project and the entire project ended up being abandoned leaving security holes and functionality issues (for example bugs) in the system. We had to turn to something that was supported as a commercial project.

I am not trying to be a downer, I am trying to take an idea that is not very realistic and make it into something real. So many people think Linux is so great, but the reality doesn't match the product. They think FOSS is so much better and I think that is a very wrong idea.

Free as in beer and free as in speech just don't make things magically better. It's a concept that isn't going to help people put food on their table.

It's not some utopia that makes things better for everyone. It's not going to magically get more work done or do anything for someone who doesn't code.

A lot of this time is wasted time and can be put into something that is better. For example helping the poor (which is a real life benefit) and helping people get proper drinking water and all of that. This doesn't help solve the world's problems, it doesn't do anything other than make nerds happy while they can fight over which is better KDE, GNOME, or Unity.

I guess I don't find it very exciting when you can put your name in the OS as it boots up. At least with paid software you can help someone put food on their table.

[Yogurtmaster]

The killer apps that I have found for Linux thus far are these...

PHP/Apache/MySQL

and then

Asterisk & FreePBX

That is about it for me. All of the other stuff is already on Windows. In fact PHP/Apache/MySQL is on windows as well, but it's not as good or secure.

All of the multimedia tools are really poor.

So, if you want to run Web Server stuff and telecommunications stuff it's the bomb, everything else you can do better on the other OSes.

[MFH]

WAY before Windows we used CHEAP, SMALL and COMMON computers like the Commodore, the Lisa, the Atari, etc.

 

Lisa - common & cheap, what drugs are you on? The Lisa was a flop, because it was so freaking expensive?

[neohelp]

I have no idea why people are still replying to this thread. There are two points that clearly shows this user just wants to start a flamewar:

1: He is comparing installing updates on a (according to Wikipedia) 2 month operating system vs a 3 year (and thats general avaliability) one. He didnt even compare it to a SP1 installation which ALL PCs and ALL retail versions of Windows 7 sold in stores already have slipstreamed. This is like comparing the Playstation 4 to a Xbox (no, not Xbox One or Xbox 360. The first Xbox)

2: He spews udder ###### about a NSA backdoor. He is asked several times in this thread to provide a realiable unbias source. I have yet to see it from him. Here is the theory you talk about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAKEY First, Microsoft has denied it. Second, packet sniffers around the entire world would have discovered this YEARS ago and would have posted their findings.

That being said, I believe Linux has been a superior operating system, on a technical leval, than Windows for some years now. The problem is the same as always: No developer support. And lets not get even started on the mobile market (where it has been the year of the Linux for SEVERAL years now) where there is clearly huge developer support.

This thread is simply flamebait. Nothing else. Do not fall fo it.

[Tuishimi]

I don't really care about that.   I just have some reservations about this magic freedom that FOSS is all about.

 

 

I wasn't really referring to you, directly, you just happened to be the poster before me.  :)

[ViperAFK]

  That is my point.  In a lot of cases (not all), you can make a better product with money.  Not only are you helping people feed themselves and their families, you are also building something that can be higher quality.  If you get someone that knows how to build the correct environment and testing environment and having "code reviews" for security.  Having resources + Proper coding procedures + Money = Win for everyone.

 

  Remember, that FOSS says that your code can be more secure because there are more eyes looking at the code, but unfortunately that is a myth.  The reason is that many people can look through code and not know either what they are looking for or they can miss something like you did.  They can find some things if it's obvious, but code a lot of times isn't easy to follow in the first place. 

Not all proprietary has large financial backing and bags of money. Funding has absolutely nothing to do with the license and development model. Everything you post is a stereotype.

 

In your mind: All proprietary developers have massive amounts of funding and sit in a little clean white room all writing the most beautiful code to ever exist, and that FOSS software is nothing but dirty peasants writing spaghetti code and begging for pennies.

 

Do you not realize the hypocrisy you are presenting? You keep saying that open-source is not some "magic bullet", which is true, but at the same time you keep presenting proprietary software as being a magic bullet, by insinuating that just by being proprietary an application has better funding and code quality. Neither is a magic bullet, the license does not indicate the quality of the software.

[sanctified Veteran]

Lisa - common & cheap, what drugs are you on? The Lisa was a flop, because it was so freaking expensive?

 

Fair enough, however my point still stands.

[Growled Member]

I have no idea why people are still replying to this thread. There are two points that clearly shows this user just wants to start a flamewar:

And yet you took the time to respond.

 

 

This thread is simply flamebait. Nothing else. Do not fall fo it.

 

If you know me from around the forums, you know I don't do flamebait. I ever said in the first sentence that I would probably regret this. I've been pleasantly surprised by the responses. There has been some fanboi responses from both sides, but many of the posts are actually very good discussions. There are pros and cons to both OSes.

 

It was not a fair comparison, no question about that. It was, however, a great jumping off place for discussion between the two systems, at least I thought so.

[Growled Member]

  I used to love FOSS more than I do now.   However, working in an environment with standard coding tools and standard techniques I can now see that it's not the dream that a lot of people think it is.

Could you explain more about these standard coding tools and techniques so I could better understand where you are coming from?

[neohelp]

And yet you took the time to respond.

 

 

 

If you know me from around the forums, you know I don't do flamebait. I ever said in the first sentence that I would probably regret this. I've been pleasantly surprised by the responses. There has been some fanboi responses from both sides, but many of the posts are actually very good discussions. There are pros and cons to both OSes.

 

It was not a fair comparison, no question about that. It was, however, a great jumping off place for discussion between the two systems, at least I thought so.

And still nothing said about installing with no SP1 and the NSA BS.

Again, you are not starting a discussion. You are starting a flamewar. I came in here expecting what you thought were pros and cons about Linux and pros and cons about Windows. And all I got was you flaming Windows for a nonfair versus.

[PGHammer]

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.

And newer versions of even the desktop versions of the Windows OS - due primarily to a lot of code-commonality with the server versions (especially starting with Vista/Server 2003R2 and later) need far fewer restarts for things like driver updates.  Here's a surprise - starting with Windows 8, the ONLY driver updates that require reboots are network-related.  Period.  And not even all of them.  Sound card and HDMI audio drivers haven't required a restart since (surprise) Windows 7.  While GPU driver updates required restarts in Vista, more often they don't in 7, and definitely don't in either 8 or the 8.1 Preview (unless you change GPU brands, such as AMD to nVidia).  Call it Alchin's Legacy - the restart reduction goes back to the Jim Alchin (he came to Microsoft from DEC along with Dave Cutler) and promptly declared war on unneeded restarts - the reason why you still get told to restart is because more and more drivers are "Windows-neutral" - they are for multiple versions of Windows, and some, like XP and Vista, may still require a restart, while 7 or later usually don't.  Here's a rather surprising factoid - since my last hardware change, do you know exactly how many restarts I have had that were triggered by a software change?  I can tell you exactly how many - none.  And that includes four Patch Tuesdays - each one with several critical updates for the Windows 8.1 Preview AND other software on my computer.  Here's the even larger surprise - Windows Server 2012R2 has required more reboots than Windows 8.1.  (And this is - quite literally - the same hardware.)  OS X Mountain Lion and Mavericks have required fewer restarts than Windows Server, but more than 8.1.  (Same hardware yet again - yes, I run FOUR OSes on this desktop - all of which are "bare hardware" - not in VMs.)

[Yogurtmaster]

Could you explain more about these standard coding tools and techniques so I could better understand where you are coming from?

Sure...

Making sure everyone understands and is a part of the process on the planning.

All developers would be using the latest same coding tools (API's, compilers, IDE, environment, etc..) and using check in/check out (version control and source control) system for source code and using standard documentation methods for all of the code, making the code modular and thus having an organized design and doing "code reviews" and following the security recommendations from Black Hat.

All of these things would be based on strict coding standards that are unified with all of the coders.

Not all proprietary has large financial backing and bags of money. Funding has absolutely nothing to do with the license and development model. Everything you post is a stereotype.

 

In your mind: All proprietary developers have massive amounts of funding and sit in a little clean white room all writing the most beautiful code to ever exist, and that FOSS software is nothing but dirty peasants writing spaghetti code and begging for pennies.

 

Do you not realize the hypocrisy you are presenting? You keep saying that open-source is not some "magic bullet", which is true, but at the same time you keep presenting proprietary software as being a magic bullet, by insinuating that just by being proprietary an application has better funding and code quality. Neither is a magic bullet, the license does not indicate the quality of the software.

I am not saying that commercial software is a magic bullet at all. It's not. If you don't know what you are doing you can waste millions of dollars.

My point is that so many people point to Linux or FOSS in general and claim that it's some magic thing and that it's simply more productive than commercial software. I am saying that this is a fairy tale.

In most cases Commercial software will beat FOSS in quality. I didn't say every case. I didn't say commercial software is a magic bullet. I didn't say all of the time or in every case. I said most of the time and that is true.

[ViperAFK]

In most cases Commercial software will beat FOSS in quality.

This is a pure stereotype that is impossible to quantify. this is what you keep saying that keeps annoying me so much...

 

In specific categories of software, a statement like this may be possible to quantify, but a blanket statement saying "In most cases commercial software is higher quality" is simply not true. You need to stop perpetuating that ridiculous statement.

[Yogurtmaster]

This is a pure stereotype that is impossible to quantify. this is what you keep saying that keeps annoying me so much...

 

In specific categories of software, a statement like this may be possible to quantify, but a blanket statement saying "In most cases commercial software is higher quality" is simply not true. You need to stop perpetuating that ridiculous statement.

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.

[ViperAFK]

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.

Dude, you are just being ridiculous. there is nothing more I can add to this because you will just reply with more stereotyping and generalizing.

 

And you also seem to insinuate that one is limited to FOSS software when running linux. Linux != FOSS/Richard stallman. Linux is a kernel that is open source, and most software that runs on it is open source, but there is also proprietary software that runs on linux. For example, the popular commercial video editor lightworks was recently ported to linux. There is no reason one can't run proprietary software on linux. You are not limited to exclusively running OSS software on linux.

[Max Norris]

but there is also proprietary software that runs on linux.

For what it's worth, a friend of mine owns an Autodesk Maya license for Linux, I own IntelliJ, Zend Studio and a few miscellaneous items, specifically for Linux. Obviously it's still a drop in the pond versus Windows but commercial stuff does exist and they're making money on it.

And just to muddy it up a tick, I have a Windows Server machine that's been happily running Apache for a couple of years, prefer it versus IIS when ASP.NET isn't in the equation. Properly locked down of course.

[Yogurtmaster]

Dude, you are just being ridiculous. there is nothing more I can add to this because you will just reply with more stereotyping and generalizing.

 

And you also seem to insinuate that one is limited to FOSS software when running linux. Linux != FOSS/Richard stallman. Linux is a kernel that is open source, and most software that runs on it is open source, but there is also proprietary software that runs on linux. For example, the popular commercial video editor lightworks was recently ported to linux. There is no reason one can't run proprietary software on linux. You are not limited to exclusively running OSS software on linux.

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.