Slashdot Mirror
Is Linux or Windows Easier To Install?
Mark Cappel writes: "Joe Barr, a LinuxWorld.com columnist, compares Linux and Windows installations. He expected Windows to be faster and easier since Microsoft has been at it for 21 years. (DOS 1.0 was released 21 years ago today.) It turns out Red Hat is quicker and less manually intensive."
First of all, windows2000 is not 3 cd's, it is one. This was not a real install of win2000. This was a use of a propreitary 'recovery tool' supplied by sony. The ads and cd swapping do not occur when you use a fresh install of windows.
Lets show you what a windows install is REALLY like.
When I installed winXP corporate edition, here's what happened: I inserted the cd, set up the bios to boot off cd. Once the install window appeared, I had complete mouse support with my usb mouse, choose to do a typical install, waited about an hour for it to complete, let the pc reboot a couple of times, put in my serial number, and that was it. I had complete video, sound, and net support. I upgraded my video drivers, and ran windows update, and that was it. Total install time: about 1 hour 15 minutes.
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
The reason most people think installing Linux is harder is because they make it harder. Most people starting with Linux have used Windows first, and therefore want to dual boot, which requires repartitioning and other fun stuff. Now, if you were going to Windows from Linux and wanted to do this, you would have the same problem.
Then it was Red Hat's turn. I inserted the first installation CD and rebooted Windows. I chose to manually partition the disk using fdisk. First, I deleted the partition I had originally created for Linux. Then I created a 256-megabyte swap partition and gave the rest of the drive to Red Hat, choosing the ext3 journaling filesystem.
Ok ok, let's stop right here at the first paragraph. So, he already had his drive partitioned from a previous install (meaning he didn't have to mess with fips, partition magic, etc.) and he used fdisk to partition. And exactly how is this easier than a Windows install?
Granted, I've used Linux for years, and fdisk isn't difficult for me to use, but having to use fdisk raises the difficulty of an install considerably. I know that RedHat doesn't require the use of fdisk in their install, but this reviewer should have known better.
I make it a point to try out the various latest Linux installations on a spare machine here just to see how far they've come, and when one compares Redhat to something like SuSE or Mandrake, it still lags behind. RedHat is competing in the Windows NT/2k/XP Workstation/Server market, and isn't apparently too interested in the home desktop market, and their installer reflects this. There are still many questions asked throughout a Redhat install that would require some sort of background in Linux to answer.
Something like SuSE's install would work better for such a comparison, as it best combines ease of use with configurability. The SuSE install tries to autodetect and autoconfigure everything the best it can, and then presents you with a summary of everything it has done, along with the option to change anything if you want to. The new Linux user would probably just click the "Next" and accept these defaults, while the experienced Linux user still has the option to change anything he wants.
Does anyone else think this review would have been more fair if he had used a retail win2k pro disc instead of using the Sony system restore cd's?
Personally I think he was cutting Win2K alot of slack by doing it with the restore CD. Think about it, a standard worksation install of RedHat 7.3 installs alot of software that does not come standard with Win2K. At the very least you'd need to install Visual C++, Office and a couple of those MS Entertainment Packs after you finished with the OS install, to get anything near what RedHat installs.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development