Slashdot Mirror
How Linux and Windows Stack Up in 2006
Jane Walker writes "How does Linux stack up to Windows in 2006? Experts weigh in on that question in these articles, comparing the operating systems' security, reliability and usability. Get insiders' views on Microsoft's proprietary stack versus open source software, as well as Windows-to-Linux migration tips."
As Linux becomes easier to install apps on and to configure for home internet usage, for regular folks it becomes more realistic to start out with it. I don't think a regular user could switch their machine from Windows to Linux with one CD and a reboot yet... right? Can anyone show us some links for how easy the switch is, and what wouldn't be supported in general after the switch?
stuff |
Where's The Fucking Article? A link to a bunch of links...great.
If you read the summary, you knew it wasn't impartial as soon as it mentioned "Windows to Linux migration tips."
Anyone who has used a computer for a few years knows well enough how to navigate about a computer, even if not with a command line. Linux is getting better about being better for that average joe who wants nothing to do with a command line.
It's still much, much easier to deploy applications on Windows, even when you're using the GNU toolchain. With windows you're guaranteed binary compatibility on a majority of systems, with Linux, it's pretty much expected that your users are advanced enough to be able to compile from source.
It's a huge pain to distribute binaries for every different distro, so unless your app becomes popular enough for other people to do that work for you, (or the distros do it themselves) then a significant amount of development time is spent just on packaging and deployment.
Ironically, Windows with mingw et. al. seems to be a more hospitable environment toward deployment of open-source software than "Linux" is.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
I'm a computer geek who regularly uses Windows. Yes, I know, boo, hiss, whatever. My software development happens under Windows because that's what I learned on, that's where most of the market currently is, and that's what I've got a job doing. I'm not going to stop working for a company I like doing what I enjoy just because I happen to do my work on Windows.
In any case, periodically I load Linux on an alternate hard disk in my machine to play around with it and see what I can get going. I do like to keep my knowledge of it up in the event that I run into it on the job (I also do field work from time to time), but I also like to see how far it has progressed. At some point in time, I really would like to use it as my core operating system, even if I still have to drop into Windows when I work.
Recently (about a week ago), I decided to try a couple of different distributions. They all seem to suffer from one problem -- the USB keyboard no longer works when it hits the installer. "You forgot to turn on legacy mode for USB in your BIOS!", is the first thing most people would say, except that I haven't forgotten to turn it on. It works perfectly fine for the BIOS-based boot menu. I even triple checked it, thinking I was missing something. I tried numerous options to try and get the damn thing working, to no avail.
Yes, I could get a USB to PS2 converter and yes, it does work fine after that. But that's not the point -- I shouldn't HAVE to do that. Critical things like that will kill any interest your average user will have in the operating system. But, for what it's worth, I was very pleased with what I saw after I did finally get it loaded. It's come a long way from the operating system I tinkered with 6 or 7 years ago.
This is a nice illustration of what I mean when I say there is no such thing as "the Linux operating system". There is, however, "the Debian GNU/Linux operating system" and "the Fedora Core operating system" (as well as "the Windows operating system" and "the OpenBSD operating system").
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Which distros?
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
"Linux" is not a Personal Computing platform. It's a kernel that's wedded to the GNU toolchain, which is meaningless to most end-users and young developers starting out. Its a boon for people who 'do infrastructure' (including managed thin-clients) or gizmos with custom UIs. But thin-clients != personal computing. This only looks like a platform if you're a sysadmin or systems-oriented coder.
To anyone just wanting to run their PC, get user-oriented applications on CD or downloaded as a file... or experiment with some code that their teachers and pals across town can download as a file and run... "Linux" (nee Fedora, SuSE, Ubuntu, Linspire, Xandros, etc, etc) feels like a big headache. Your friends are trying out "Linux" too? Well, you've probably got to learn packaging, dependencies, repositories, etc. before you can expect your experiements to run at all on anyone else's system. The fragmented distro scene is like chlorine against budding application developers needing platform stability in order to express their creative urge.
So in the crucial desktop PC space, Windows and Mac will continue to have a considerable edge.
People here often forget what makes the PC experience special: The uniformity of a platform aimed at *their* needs (not just those wanting to experiment with new encryption and packet-switching schemes), primarily the ability to install apps and drivers at will (and before you issue the kneejerk response, no Mac OS does NOT suffer by advancing these essential platform qualities).
Anyone wanting GNU/Linux + Whatever to shine as an alternative for PC users should get behind the new LSB Desktop spec. that is due this December/January. At least then ISVs (not just system hackers) will have something uniform to target as far as APIs and other features are concerned, and we should see more creative and wonderful applications that can draw end users to the platform.
To those who don't care or hate the idea, perhaps because of the notion that elitism is what keeps GNU/Linux good and secure, I suggest adopting a tolerant and polite attitude instead; No one will be forcing you at gunpoint to use distros conforming to LSB Desktop. The desktop PC needs a workable free alternative, and we're looking to geeks to either help or get out of the way.
How about FreeBSD on your servers, Kubuntu on your desktop, and Windows on your laptop due to more advanced power management/factory utilities. Works for me, it could work for you. And none of it is incomfortable - as I prefer to use Kubuntu when I'm not away from home and forced to use my laptop. I don't really see the incomfortable argument if incomfortable is indeed a word. And thats running Edgy Eft knot 3 - which was a breeze to install and caused no further complications in system setup.
It's the same thing when people say "XP is rock-solid for me" and I answer "I get plenty of blue screens in XP", they say "the problem is in the device drivers".
Distributions like Ubuntu, Mandriva, or Suse, which have powerful installers, usually get all the hardware working automatically. Other distros, like Debian, Gentoo, or Slackware normally need a bit of fiddling to get all the hardware working. But if you compare Linux with Windows, hardware which is not quite kosher will give problems in both systems. The difference is that in Linux it will be hard to get to work in the first place, in Windows it will install easily but crash the whole system later.
Given a choice, the best option is always good hardware, but if I have to live with crappy hardware I'd rather have a system which I can configure to work with the troublesome hardware than with a system that will get the hardware working only to crash on me.
"Bye bye karma..."
You mean, "bye bye credibility". Just because you never use Linux on the desktop doesn't mean that people who do are uncomfortable doing it. Of the three major operating systems I use daily, I find Windows to be the least comfortable. Does that make me a Linux zealot? or a Mac zealot? or an anti-Microsoft zealot? Or does that make me a person who has an informed opinion and bases his decisions upon that opinion? Hm.
Well, I guess it all boils down to what it is you want to believe. You clearly have some emotional investment in thinking that using the most common and popular OS makes you somehow more special, better, or more rational than those of us who don't like it. What's not clear is why you feel the need to flaunt your membership in the MS lovers' club, and why you need to taunt people who disagree with you. The only answer I can come up with is insecurity - no, no, I'm not talking about Windows. I'm talking about your psyche. I think you need to get in touch with yourself, learn to know and to like yourself, and then perhaps you'll see that if using Windows defines you as a person, you're not really much of a person. Perhaps after high school, you'll realize that all those cool kids you wanted to hang out with weren't really all that cool, either.
We're here to help. Come talk to us when you develop opinions of your own.
True. And I do dual boot ubuntu too.
But what I wanted to say was an example of an averange Joe - he walks into a computer store to buy a new PC.. And what OS does he get/request?
It's just that about 98% of people I see on the (Linux support/talk) forums are real linux zealots. They won't use anything with closed source. They want to "kill" Ms, etc, etc. So everytime I see "Linux ready for desktop", "Linux agains MS" I write posts like that. Yes, I do, because of the reasons stated above.
Cue up the Gentoo jokes...
The 'compile from source' is what I like about Gentoo. I ran Linux for quite some before moving to Gentoo, and when it came time to install those non-distro rpms, it was frequently a crap-shoot. Try the rpm, learn about a missing dependency. Grab that, learn about its missing dependency, maybe up-level from distro standard. Grab this, find out that it doesn't play well with my distro, etc. I got quite a few non-distro things installed from rpm, but there were things that didn't, and things that I had to carefully back out and replace a base version.
By and large, Gentoo ebuilds just work, and the variety is great enough that I've had to go out-of-distro less often. Beyond that, since Gentoo is source-based, I usually don't have to go and grab some '-devel' package that isn't normally installed, in order to build out-of-distro software. Yeah, the compile time can be a pain, but the total get-arbitrary-package-running time is generally shorter.
Plus there isn't the old 'version n+1 is out, time to reinstall/upgrade' churn. Of course there's a lower level of continual churn, but aside from recent things like gcc and glibc levels, and modular xorg, it's pretty easy.
By an large, I only have problems with closed-source binary packages, and some stuff that isn't properly ported to amd64, yet. (Doomsday, for one)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
``Long story short: Linux on the servers, WIndows everywhere''
Eh? Windows runs on watches, Playstations, and Powermacs these days? And as for "if you have the choice, which would you pick?" I'd say Windows on the desktop, perhaps, but nowhere else; Linux is ok anywhere (but that's only because "the Linux OS" doesn't exist: I'd like a GUI on my PDA, but not on my router).
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
While I agree that standardizing parts of the Desktop Distributions would help, and will look forward to the future avoidance of "dependancy hell", I don't agree with the assesment that the non-standardness of these Desktop Distros causes any real undue problems for normal PC users.
An example is my roomate, I installed Suse 10.1 on his virus laden windows box, and he loves it. There have been no issues at all with it. The biggest plus with most of the desktop oriented distros that you mention, is that there is no need for the average user to install extra software, becuase everything that most of them need comes pre-installed.
Then there are the package managers like synaptic, yum, yast, smart, etc. which take care of everything for you, and can be easier than tracking down windows software.
So, if an average user wanted to use a linux distro as your desktop pc, I don't see where the big issue is. The fact is that the average user will run into problems with any desktop oriented operating system, say spyware and virii with windows, or dependancy hell with linux, that they will either need to figure out, or get help for.
Mainly because when you distribute for Windows you know you're normally going to have administrator access
As usual, the existence and relative success of OS X negates such claims.
Automatic package managers + huge repository seem nice at first. Until you realize there are Zero independant application developers offering great stuff for your OS, because the distro differences and their PMs continually massaging/tossing around system components have scared off those types of developers. Want your stuff to install and keep working on the PCs of users A, B and X? Then find out what their distros are and surrender your code so that a 'maintainer' middle-man (with probably no interest or real experience with anything more high-level than Firefox) can manage it for you. Ha. There goes control over your code. There go modes of distribution like application on a CDROM or a ZIP file. There goes the close relationships you might have formed with most users who cannot/willnot operate a compiler. All out the window.
None of this is really an obstacle to nerdy sysadmins or those to write software targeted at them, because they have IT insight and experience. But for everyone else, such as authors/users of PC applications, its lethal.
Mac and Windows serve as relatively stable environments, where PC developers and users meet. Or if you prefer, they "interface". That is how a PC software platform has to work. To our Linux community, this direct interfacing without a distro 'maintainer' between them is treated as 'unclean'. And if Linux distros were as carelessly written as Windows, the author/user seperation habit probably would improve cleanliness (less malware); however that is not necessarily so and it is proven untrue in the case of Mac OS X, which has the PC software model without a malware epidemic.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They won't use anything with closed source.
So what about those who use closed source apps on Linux?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
There is Windows for Embedded Systems.
I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
The Linux pride, or simply pride, campaign of the open source movement has three main premises:
* that all people of all computing orientations should be proud, not ashamed, of being young white middle-class Linux-geek men;
* that computing diversity is a gift to young white middle-class Linux-geek men;
* that computing orientation and operating system type are inherent, unless of course you dual-boot Windows and FreeBSD and are therefore only fooling yourself.
Pride Parades are held worldwide, wherein young male white middle-class Linux geeks of all colours, ages, operating system types and backgrounds can walk down the centre of the main street of their city and commemorate the original Stallmanwall printer driver riots.
Many parades still have at least some of the original political or activist character, especially in less Linux-positive settings. However, in more Linux-positive cities, the parades take on an installfest-like character. Large parades often involve floats, coders, Mountain Dew, venture capitalists, and amplified music; but even such celebratory parades usually include political and educational contingents, such as local politicians and marching groups from open source institutions of various kinds. In some countries, Linux parades are now also called Linux Pride Install Festivals.
Even the most festive parades usually offer some aspect dedicated to remembering victims of Stallmanwall and anti-Linux FUD. Some particularly important Linux parades are funded by governments and corporate sponsors, and promoted as major tourist attractions for the cities that host them. Other typical parade participants include local Linux-friendly churches such as Emacs Community Churches and BSD Universalist Churches, PFLAB (Parents and Friends of Linux and BSD), and the nerd employee associations from large businesses.
Though the Stallmanwall riots themselves as well as the immediate and the ongoing political organizing that occurred following them were events that were fully participated in by BSD users, X11 people and future Sun founders as well as by white middle-class male Linux users of all races, genders and backgrounds, historically these events were first named Linux, the word at that time being used in a more generic sense to cover the entire spectrum of what is now variously called the Red Hat, SuSE or Debian community.
By the late '80s and early '90s, as many of the actual participants had grown older, moved on to other issues or passed away, this led to misunderstandings as to who had actually participated in the Stallmanwall riots, who had actually organized the subsequent demonstrations, marches and memorials and who had been members of early activist organizations such as the Linux Liberation Front and Linux Activists Alliance.
But eventually the language caught up with the reality of the community and the names have become more accurate and inclusive, though these changes met with initial resistance from some in their own communities who were unaware of the actual historical facts. Changing first to Linux and BSD, today most are called GNU/Linux/X11/KDE/GNOME/Mozilla/gcc (GLXKGMg) Pride Parades. But only by the sort of geeks even the other geeks don't want to hang out with.
Remember: just because you have a personal coding output of zero doesn't mean that you can't take full credit for the programming genius of others for a lifestyle of Slashdot, caffeine and masturbation.
And believe me, you haven't lived until you've seen twenty Linux geeks clad only in silver jockstraps.
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Linux_Pride
http://rocknerd.co.uk
It seems like Linux is now becoming a major competitor to Windows and Mac on the desktop. It hac come a long way. With the advancment of binaries like .deb, .rpm, .bin, and scripts it is getting easier and easier to install things on linux. Wine has gotten so that most Windows software with exception to some games and programs that need drivers will run. I can easily run IE, WMP, Shockwave, the latest Flash, Outlook Express, Office, and the like. More and more hardware vendors have been supporting linux. The winmodem problem seems to have been solved not by the development of drivers (though that has happened) but by the spread of broadband and ethernet. WiFi support has improved. Gaim has IM covered. Firefox's spread has helped linux be able to read more web pages by discouraging IE only pages. OOo has goten good at dealing with office documents. iPods work. Flash and Java and MP3 and Real are all supported. The only real problems are legal DVD support and legal WMA and Quicktime support. There are games on linux. What is missing, we need OEMs.
The Gospel according to lolcat
how about http://www.microsoft.com/products/? Sure, you can't instantly install the programs there, but neither can you if you go to www.gentoo-portage.com. Hell, even with some programs (e.g. Maya,) you still can't do "emerge maya" or click "Emerge" with Porthole, and something makes me thing that the same situation exists with Yum and Apt.
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux and use it for my computing whenever I'm not doing things that are currently much easier to do under Windows, or things that can only be done under Windows. Hell, just two days ago I got a BSOD when all I was doing was looking at www.economist.com and ripping some movies. Speaking of BSOD's, I've been getting quite a few of them lately, and I know I don't have any viruses....
Download.com. will serve as an example. I could as easily have chosen a half-dozen others.
Programs neatly sorted in categories. Independent editorial reviews. User reviews. Screenshots. Tutorials. Licensing and prices.
Let me know when your typical Linux disteo provides that much help for the beginner.
You Microsoft guys have no idea how complicated is getting software for Windows if you are a newbie. You just think it's easy because you are so familiar with the whole thing
My youngest niece began with XP at age four. Her older brothers with Win95 in 1996. The truth of it is that there are no Windows newbies.
I may be out of date myself here, because it has been a long time since I did this, but I remember that even in 1998 automake/autorun were easier to use than solving all the incompatibility problems between windows applications and DLLs.
I made the move from Win 95 to Win XP in one leap and in little more than one day. Programs written for Win 3, Win 9x, XP and MSDOS still coexist on my system even now.
I had a similar problem when I was trying out SuSE Linux 9.1 x64 a couple of years ago.
The installation went OK, however, the keyboard never worked in GRUB, even if 'USB Legacy Support' was enabled. After some fiddling, I finally had to give up and use a PS/2 converter.
I think the problem is somehow related to the fact that the keyboard was not just a USB HID keyboard device, but a USB Composite device, containing two USB HID descriptors (a keyboard + a mouse).
The mouse descriptor is probably there because the keyboard has a scroll wheel, which works exactly like a mouse scroll wheel without installing any additional software.
throw new SuccessException("Sig read successfully");
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Getting winamp or nero or whatever application you want is very easy if you know which app you need and where to get it. "
Let's see. Bought a DVD burner last week. Came with the Nero suite. Can't get any simpler than that.
I run gentoo, so "emerge app" will do it for me. As for Debian, apt will do it also.. But not everybody in the linux world is equal.. rpm's are pretty much God's way of punishing the Linux users... My wife can install Windoze by herself, and she is very capable of downloading from download.com or tucows or somewhere else and "doube-clicking" and having the app install itself. Now, if I throw her a rpm, and put her in dependency hell, then you will quickly see that Linux was designed with the geek, and not the average user in mind.
/etc and live as a flatfile, I can email it to a friend if I need help, or just make a copy to back it up. This however, is nigh impossible to do in windows most of the time. When I restore a box, I install all the apps and then copy over the old config files. All done. In windows, it takes me 4234 mouse clicks to try to reconfigure things the way I had them before.
When all set up, she uses my Gentoo box without any problems. In fact, I've got her using Thunderbird, Firefox, and so she sometimes doesn't even remember if she's using a windoze box or a linux box.
I prefer the GUI for some things, and the CLI for others. Each has strengths and each has weaknesses..
The real pony everybody should be talking about is configuration..
Usually, a unix program takes me 30 minutes to an hour to configure. Much longer than Windoze. BUT, once configured, I pretty much never touch it again. Also, because most are in the
What I can't imagine is deploying 1000 boxes using a gui.. Clicking next next next until my finger falls off is not my idea of network administration. "Oh Windows has a CLI!!" Right, and I read the Victoria's Secret catalog because I actually care about Fall Fashion...
The problem is most Windoze people aren't honest with themselves. Windows is great for some tasks. But for others it bombs. Linux is great for some tasks, but for some, it bombs as well.. People just need to be honest with themselves..
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=zomg+internet! &btnG=Google+Search&meta=
Its really that easy to make your own article to submit to slashdot.
This issue needs the attention of distribution teams. Bug #1 on Ubuntu's bug-tracker indicates their issue with Microsoft's dominance; Mark Shuttleworth should be sending delegates to OEMs to have a live Ubuntu experience included on the computer. The possibility of giving OEM's an edition of Ubuntu to be usd as the restore software for a broken Windows install (with the option of living with the Ubuntu recovery desktop or installing a fresh Ubuntu instance instead of recovering Windows) would be a good start on the road to OEM inclusion, which is where the Desktop Linux presence has to begin.
This issue *is* common, it's the real reason Linux isn't making big inroads and it doesn't look like it's going to be fixed anytime soon.
User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"
Zealot: "Oh that's easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin, then do chmod +x on the file. Then you have to su to root, make sure you type export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 but ONLY if you have that latest libc6 installed. If you don't, don't set that environment variable or the installer will dump core. Before you run the installer, make sure you have the GL drivers for X installed. Get them at [some obscure web address], chmod +x the binary, then run it, but make sure you have at least 10MB free in /tmp or the installer will dump core. After the installer is done, edit /etc/X11/XF86Config and add a section called "GL" and put "driver nv" in it. Make sure you have the latest version of X and Linux kernel 2.6 or else X will segfault when you start. OK, run the Quake 3 installer and make sure you set the proper group and setuid permissions on quake3.bin. If you want sound, look here [link to another obscure web site], which is a short HOWTO on how to get sound in Quake 3. That's all there is to it!"
User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Windows?"
Zealot: "Oh God, I had to install Quake 3 in Windoze for some lamer friend of mine! God, what a fucking mess! I put in the CD and it took about 3 minutes to copy everything, and then I had to reboot the fucking computer! Jesus Christ! What a retarded operating system!"
No sig today...
Linux is not and will never be Windows. Windows is a consumer grade toaster-OS You can't really change anything and that's the way consumers want it. linux is a developer grade erectorset-OS. Change it any way you want. Flexibility frightens the consumer. They want everyone to have the same OS as they have themselves so they can feel as if they fit in. Linux is for people who don't need to fit in.
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
People dont want to care about package X not working with distribution Y. People want to know or care about dependancies. People want to double click or insert the CD and the program installs. People dont want to compile anything. Compiling things scares people. No matter how 'easy' the command (line) might be, the very fact it's a command is already too much for most people. People dont care about what program they're using is installing packages or rpms. Folders named /bin /etc /home /usr scare people. The warm and fuzzy names of 'My Computer' and 'Documents and Settings' dont scare people. Being able to SSH in to your terminal is not something people care about. People want thier warm and fuzzy GUI when they log in remotely. All of these things which linux is admittedly very good at and very flexible, the average person doesn't want to even know about.
It's been argued here at length an infinite amount of times, but the very things that Linux is good at is also what holds it back from mainstream adoption (or at least slows it down a great deal). The power and flexibility that linux offers will always far surpass anything that Microsoft can throw at the OSS community. However, people here are missing the bigger point. Microsoft succeeds (for an number of reasons, but) because what they do is warm and fuzzy, and familiar. Im a linux advocate, but I;m not going to kid myself and start to think "Hey, maybe the command line IS something that the average person should use" .
All Im saying is alot of you I think are missing the point. Until Linux gets a whole lot more warm and fuzzy, it wont be stepping on MS's toes too much in the home-user sphere.
I first must say that using Linux maybe not quite as easy as XP but, its pretty close. It just takes a bit of learning, maybe slightly more time than learning XP however. Multilingual support in XP stinks... If you want an English system plus a Chinese system for example... its just not possible. In Linux however, I have my account in English, but I have set it up where my girlfriend (who is Taiwanese) can log in and everything is in Chinese. All the menus, help docs.... everything! On top of that setting up Chinese input is a breezeat least in SuSE). The same applies to other languages as well. I just set up a French version for a friend of mine. Again, both in English and French. Thats very forward thinking!
for personal use and comercial use .....we human being need both of it...because both of them got pros and cons. For designer we need ADOBE...and we cant live without it. For aggresive user, linux is the best choices. Security wise, free license, upgradebility and customization are excellent reason why expertise field using linux. Dumb user just go on with the windows unless you want to learn something deeper. It is good if one of them can stack each other...either windows with linux or linux with windows. It seems revolution is needed for greater invention of course we're happy with it. Linux is great when user are used to it ( take some times ) but when the fussy problem came your head will be mess. Why windows are easy to use?...because you pay A LOT OF MONEY TO microsoft so they have to provide easier and effective for their client...what you pay is what you got. Im happy if both of this OS can integrate and stack together, for dumb and expert user there is only one choice!..we shouldn't debate and compare which one is the greatest.
Where is the simple way to look for a software to install, searching by category?
Hey, they've got that for windows now!