Slashdot Mirror
What Differentiates Linux from Windows?
tail.man sent in a Linux Insider piece about the difference between Linux and Windows. Quoting the synopsis "So, what's really the difference between a Unix variant like Linux and any Windows OS? It's that Microsoft reacts to marketing pressure to make design decisions favoring running a few processes faster but then finds itself forced first to layer in backward compatibility and then to engage in a patch-and-kludge upgrade process until the code becomes so bloated, slow and unreliable that wholesale replacement is again called for."
is that windows installs then runs, unlike linux where one must
-attempt to install
-attempt to configure partitions
once installed you must
-attempt to configure your devices
-attemtp to run updates
face it, linux is fine for you pimple faced nerdos, but this shit will never fly for the rest of us.
"Linux, getting you to spend two days configuring your system, only to realise it offers no benefits over XP"
Yes, but at least it comes out with the updates it needs in a reasonable time. With linux you are depending on a bunch of people sitting in their garage, to come out with something that "may" work. At lease with MS there is responsibility in what they write.
Lunix is homosexual to the max
Windows is the best Operating System ever
A spectre is haunting the world, the spectre of the Linux zealot.
What the Linux zealot is will appear evident to whoever has experienced or came in contact with the discussions which daily rage the Web disguised as news, e-mails, reference material, etc. The Linux zealot, is nothing but an animal wandering unceasingly in virtual and true reality (which moreover he treats in the same way) claiming to be an authority on the Linux operating system, an out-and-out guarantor for everyone's freedom, opposed to any safeguard of intellectual works (for a Linux zealot, the expression "copyright" is tantamount to sin against the Holy Spirit: there is no kind of expiation); in fact, he champions software freedom as a fundamental point for world evolution.
But first and foremost, the Linux zealot is a deeply dangerous being as he claims to be the guardian of truth, and sees with suspicion (when it goes off well) or scorn (for the rest of cases, i.e. most of them) those people who simply think differently from him.
But what's Linux? A Linux zealot will never give an authentic answer to this kind of question. He won't, not because he doesn't want to (even if this is the case), but because this question has been answered already, somewhere else by someone else. Linux is nothing but an operating system. The Linux zealot will claim that it is a different operating system from all others. But this is not the case. Because an OS is an OS, its main function is to manage the resources of a machine we will call "computer" from now on, for comfort of description. By the term "computer" we mean what is commonly meant by this expression, i. e. the system of hardware resources which are fixed to a certain purpose, be it home use, business use, or server management. Linux is an operating system. Like Windows, MS-DOS, OS/2, etc. There is no difference, in this sense, between Linux and other operating systems. Linux manages a computer, no more, no less. So do MS-DOS, Windows and OS/2. What the Linux zealot self-importantly and arrogantly highlights, is the fact that Linux is a free operating system, i.e., it is made available free of charge to the end user. This of course isn't true at all, but the Linux Zealot believes it. Linux is freely distributable, not free of charge. This means that the kernel and everything included in the operating system's minimal requirements can be freely distributed, not that they must be distributed free of charge. This is the first great misapprehension of the Linux zealots, who find their claim challenged by facts: if the essential parts which make the operating system, and some additional software, are freely distributable, they should explain the reason of the costs -- not prohibitive but certainly notable -- of the most popular Linux distributions, Red Hat and SuSE foremost. And most of all, they should explain the fact that companies like Red Hat are regularly listed on the stock exchange, and Mr. Linux Torvalds enjoys a rather high standard of living. These benefactors of mankind, these software alternatives, these computer non-conformists (so much non-conformist as to be terribly conformist in their non-conformism) naturally justify the distributing companies' profits with excuses like "but there's a printed manual", "but the bundled software is qualitatively and numerically superior compared to the most popular distribution". "but it is easier to install" and other unspeakable nonsense. "On the other hand" they say "if someone wants Linux, they can just as easily download it from the Internet". Sure. Download it from the Internet. But how long must you stay connected, if you regularly pay an Internet bill, to complete the download of an updated version of a decent distribution of an operating system? So what? Is Linux free? No. Linux is not free, same as nothing downloaded from the Internet is free, unless you have access to an University server or can in whatever way scrounge a connection. If you ask a Linux zealot to burn the material you are interested in, he will do so with great d
i've been starting to use KDE for some time now. I first tried Gnome, but that completely sucked, so I started with KDE.
There are so many things that I miss from Windows, that I really must say that Linux has a loong way to go before I can work as fast as I am working when I use the Windows GUI.
Yep, like have sex with school age boys...
Why not opensource all of their products?
Simple. They want cock. Massive, pulsating, lubericated cock. Just like the French do. God fuck the french. And god fuck you too, jerky boy.
A: BOTH SUCK compared to Mac OS X!
Mac OS X is a rock-solid open-source operating system, the most modern OS in the world! I'm so excited!!!
From the Apple Mac OS X Page:
BUY A MAC TODAY!!!!!!!
each time I use a Windows machine I get frustrated to the point of giving up very quickly
Wow. No geek points for you. I can effectively use just about any computer without giving up and getting frustrated. You sound like an end user. And thats not a good thing. There are millions of us who can effectively use FreeBSD, SunOS, Linux, Windows, or any other OS shoved in front of us without giving up and getting frustrated. Maybe you should see your family doctor. You may just be retarded.
Anti-Microsoft comment
That was rated +4 informative????How informative it was, it did not provide us with links, nor sources, it simply mocked a product using a popular misconception, and then used what the slashdotter thought was a funny analogy. But I know slashdot moderators.
Duh, Microsoft is bad, they try and make money, their evil, and have a bad product, they only made money, because their evil, and people are dumb.
ugh what a bunch of shit, you Linux zealots are just like guys that lose then complain that the refs were unfair, or that the other team cheated. Quit your bitching. Microsoft is a profitable company because it is ran by an intelligent man that understands the market, and understands the needs of the majority of the market he sells in.
Also you are a moderator for slashdot, talk about hypocritical, why do I have banners at the top of my page. SO YOU CAN MAKE MONEY
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
ignore this idiot...by "runs just fine", he means that he only has to reboot it every other day...and the 5 minute wait for loading the bloat also means "runs just fine"...well, we all know the real story...this guy is just trolling...
BUZZ... INCORRECT!
Get that vibrator out of your ass. And brush and floss your teeth, you got fucking dingleberries stuck in them you sick fuck.
That's not Linux's fault. It's the shitty distro you are using.
Time makes more converts than reason