Slashdot Mirror
After Ubuntu, Windows Looks Increasingly Bad
mrcgran writes "Sys-Con has a look at some advantages of using Ubuntu over Windows. 'My recent switch to a single-boot Ubuntu setup on my Thinkpad T60 simply floors me on a regular basis. Most recently it's had to do with the experience of maintaining the software. Fresh from a very long Windows 2000 experience and a four-month Windows XP experience along with a long-time Linux sys admin role puts me in a great position to assess Ubuntu. Three prior attempts over the years at using Linux as my daily desktop OS had me primed for failure. Well, Ubuntu takes Linux where I've long hoped it would go — easy to use, reliable, dependable, great applications too but more on that later. It has some elegance to it — bet you never heard that about a Linux desktop before.'"
who do i thank for that?
...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
I'd flag this as off topic, but that's the worst, adblock plus-evading website I've come across in a while. If that's the destiny of the web, then thanks, but no thanks, from me.
Ever wondered whats wrong with the world? http://www.ishmael.org/
Print version. The page is really ridden with ads (including a popup and a flash video).
I've been using it at work for the past several months, it accomplishes everything I need. I miss Trillian, Gaim is a mediocre substitute IMHO. I've been very impressed with how good the experience has been, I have yet to find myself thinking "Damn, I wish I had my windows box back."
Now, I'm looking forward to UbuntuDupe's post about how Ubuntu sucks because nobody helped with his troubles using Ubuntu, despite his tantrum on the forums.
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
... with the Linux vs. Windows chenanigans.
:s
Flamebait I say
...or the user?
"...a long-time Linux sys admin role puts me in a great position to assess Ubuntu. Three prior attempts over the years at using Linux as my daily desktop OS had me primed for failure."
If a Linux sysadmin can't use Linux on the desktop, it must be a terrible desktop OS! Right? Right? *looks around frantically*
Come on, man. There are plenty of people who have been using Linux as their daily desktop. That would be why there have been so many "desktop" versions of Linux over the years.
"Fresh from a very long Windows 2000 experience and a four-month Windows XP experience along with a long-time Linux sys admin role puts me in a great position to assess Ubuntu."
TFA reads less like a comparison of two OS's than an Ubuntu sales pitch. Granted, I use and love Ubuntu, but I like my side-by-sides with a little less bias from the get-go.
Reliable. Locked down by default. Runs all the apps, games and multimedia Linux may never have. MS's first good OS deliverable.
I guess they may have compared 2003, but I guess he is just finding out about XP, so he is a little behind the times.
I've used KDE as my primary work desktop for 5 years. Sometimes there were limitations, but those were easily overcome. Things got even simpler when we switched to terminal services for some of our corporate desktops. E-mail was always an issue with an exchange backend, but Kontact has filled that void since we migrated to Exchange 2000. OpenOffice handled all the spreadsheets, and the applications that I could not run via wine were first handled by an old box using VNC, then remote desktop once that was rolled out.
There were some things that I couldn't do, but there was a lot more that I could do to offset that. With the extra flexibility that linux gave, and the ability to show off an alternate desktop, I would not go back.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Linux better than Windows for sysadmin tasks!
News at 11.
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
I switched one of my computers to Ubunutu after my Windows 2000 got yet another set of spyware/virus files that could not easily be removed. For the basic mundane stuff I love it, web browsing especially. I can't tell you how nice it is to know that the probability of getting some spyware or virus or whatever is virtually zero. Will this change as Ubuntu becomes more popular, who knows, but for now, I use Ubuntu for 90% of my web browsing, even on my dual-boot laptop.
I've always found it easier to install linux than windows or at least for the past few years and for the same reasons listed in the article. No virus scanner, no serial numbers, fewer cds, more included software all make it very nice. Installing software is easier in ubuntu too.
I'm not sure if the writer was intentionally attempting to jinx the Windows install, but who in the right mind still installs or recommends Symantec/Norton when great products like Kaspersky now exist?
Ever try removing Norton from a system? It's like pulling wisdom teeth!
I understand that virus protection wasn't the main focus of the article, but he did make reference to it, and in the defense of Windows and giving the article a bit more of a balanced test, the testers should at least make sure they are using good 3rd party products.
h
Valkyrie is about to die! Wizard needs food -- badly!
"...along with a long-time Linux sys admin role puts me in a great position to assess Ubuntu"
I find sys admins often don't make the best user-friendly assessments of desktop software and OSs, especially from average Joe's point of view. No offense to the author, who makes many valid points, but I'd rather see a comparison of Ubuntu, Vista, and OS X from a school teacher or small business owner.
- For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.
...long with a long-time Linux sys admin role puts me in a great position to assess Ubuntu. Right. Can you imagine the response had someone said "As a long time Windows server admin, I'm in a great position to assess Vista". Seriously, how many more articles about long time linux users "discovering" they love this or that distro are we in for?Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here
If you typed all that by yourself I'm impressed, especially since you wrote it standing up (I hear you're chair-hostile) and I don't care what anybody says about monkeys and typewriters.
I will get bashed since slashdot is linux fanboy heaven but this is my experience. Ubuntu will not become mainstream until most isntals work with no command line needed what so ever. i have tried ubuntu on my laptop and on a p3 450 hp comp and both required command line help to get the basic system working.
For system admins linux might be good but if 30 min of fiddling with the command line to just get the system working is needed then it will not become mainstream.
Also on that hp comp ubuntu takes n15 min to boot up. I am not lying. Xp on the same machine is much faster.I tried getting help on some linux boards and all I got were nasty replies.
So there is a lot of things that have to be done before linux becomes mainstream and really fights microsoft.
Go ahead and bash me all you want butthis is true.
FTFA:
"2) Vulnerabilities - Windows is like Swiss cheese with so many vulnerabilities that it's sick - you can't connect XP to a public Internet connection (i.e., behind a router is OK but direct to the net isn't). Ubuntu? It's Linux - no worries."
I call bullshit on the author being a Linux admin. I'm not trolling and this certainly isn't flamebait, only truth: "It's Linux - no worries" is a load of crap and everyone here knows it.
From TFA:
That's FANTASTIC! Who is this guy and what's his IP?
Yes, MS sucks, Windows sucks, bugs galore and all that, but all nontrivial software is going to have bugs, and some of those bugs will lead to vulnerabilities, and some of those vulnerabilities will lead to viruses, attacks and so on. The reason that there aren't a lot of Linux viruses/attacks prawling around the net is because the Windows population is orders of magnitude larger than than the Linux population, making the choice obvious for any would-be parasite. Maybe Ubuntu is way better software than Windows in any number of ways - ehm, I mean, of course it is, but if it were to sweep Windows clean off the face of the Earth and take its place, you'd be installing Symantec for Ubuntu and worrying about script kiddies, trojans and the like. If Ubuntu is better then it'll be harder to exploit, but exploits will happen - the perceived calm right now exists because too few people are trying to attack the platform.
Even as you read this, your pants are strangling your loins! Aaa!
2) Vulnerabilities - Windows is like Swiss cheese with so many vulnerabilities that it's sick - you can't connect XP to a public Internet connection (i.e., behind a router is OK but direct to the net isn't). Ubuntu? It's Linux - no worries.
3) Thanks to #1 and #2, I'm free from products like Symantec and Norton and the dollar expense, the complexity of administering them (those pop-ups are annoying and a productivity hit), and wondering when they expire next. Wow, I wonder where I've heard this before. Sheesh. Yes, Linux has a better security model than the typical "make everyone administrator" model used on Windows systems, but this does not make Linux magically bullet proof. As for not needing anti-virus or anti-spyware software for Linux.. you don't need them for Mac either. Why is that? Cause no-one could be bothered writing a virus or some spyware for such a minuscule amount of the market.
But look at what happened with Firefox. Initially, just like Linux or Mac, no-one bothered trying to break the security. There was no hacks to get around popup blockers, etc. Now Firefox is just a little more popular and the threat landscape has changed.
This isn't to say that Linux can't be made more resilient to viruses if and when they finally show up. It can, and, more importantly, it probably will. Just don't go around saying that Linux is immune to viruses and spyware. Especially, don't go around claiming that this stuff is impossible, because that's exactly the kind of challenge that blackhats go for.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Whenever these discussions come up, I like to forestall some of the repetition by posting my list of wins for OS X, Windows, and Linux. This is a list of the things each OS does better than some others, not a list of problems. Feel free to post and suggest other items, but please know what you;re talking about. I hate getting posts from people who clearly have never used two of the OS's in question and are simply assuming their favorite OS must do it better.
OS X Wins:
Windows Vista Wins:
I recently switched my home box from dual-partition to Kubuntu only, so I'm genuinely curious what applications are holding you back. In my experience, there were a few troubling cases, and their resolution:
Lack of applications used to be a problem with linux, but with modern applications like Amarok, a wonderfully complete (and always getting better) WINE project, and the polished experience and integration of suites like KDE... well, I just don't buy the "my apps aren't there!" anti-Linux argument.
This statement is solely an opinion. Kindly take it as such in all cases.
I recently ran out of room on my HD for an XP install on my laptop. I bought a new drive and I installed Ubuntu Feisty on it. I was pretty impressed. I was able to do nearly everything I needed, mainly web development stuff. Even the power management seemed to be working. But I could not get the fonts to my liking...for whatever reason they just didn't look right, and they bothered my eyes. None of the settings that I tweaked helped significantly. So for now I'm back to XP, but I will investigate improving Ubuntu's fonts in the meantime.
P.S. One thing I missed from the Windows world was a simple RPN calculator like XCalc.
huh?
/have/ to pay for Windows, but you don't have to pay for Linux (you can if you want!), and there's probably more commercial software (but not much less free software) for Windows.
1) buy all the thing
Yeah, I bough all my hardware, theft is usually frowned upon, even if you are using FOSS...
Or were you talking about software?
*Looks at The Gimp icon on his desktop*
*Looks at the Open Office Icons*
Yep, paid *so* much for those! They cost me all of $0.00, I'm gonna go broke!
Seriously, finding free software for Windows is trivial.
2) install them ( each app in another way )
Yep, I have to install stuff to use it. Darn. Whoda thunk.
Oh wait, I install stuff if I use it in Linux. Sometimes by the package fetcher, sometimes by a downloaded package + manager, sometimes by source. Oh, looks there's lots of different ways there too.
In Windows it usually just involves wisards with extremely similar interfaces, where if you want you can put in the CD and keep clicking "next" until done, only having to agree to a EULA. But like Linux, there are the oddballs where you have to go outside of the norm.
3) update them, after paying for the possibilty of update Windows
Yes, because if you have Linux installed, with Xorg 6.9, you will *never* have to upgrade to 7.x to use version 7.x! It's *magical*
Seriously, every complaint in your rant is *just* as applicable to Linux as it is to Windows. The only caveat is that you
Some people find that Windows and some of that commercial software over the free alternatives. I know, having had a lot of experience with both, I prefer Windows to Linux, Corel Photopaint to The Gimp, etc.
It's all a matter of what you use, how you use it, and you method of looking at and solving problems.
Also, there are some games that will run in windows but not Wine, that's another reason some people use Windows...
People won't always agree with you, get over it.
(And if you try to counter me with that one - I never once said people shouldn't use Linux, I simply said that there are reasons not to use it, which may be valid for some users).
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
"Cause no-one could be bothered writing a virus or some spyware for such a minuscule amount of the market."
Myth.
It assumes that all three OSs are designed developed and written the same way. they are not.
The person that writes an in the wild virus for OSX will get a lot of notoriety. Probably enough to get funding for their own anti-virus for the Mac company; which could include a multi-million dollar exit strategy when one of the big names buys the company.
Linux and OSX are inherently more secure due to their architecture design.
Are they bullet proof? not likely, but your statement is based on a logical fallacy.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
Your half right.
.*/bin or .*/sbin direcotries, since those hold applications, if someone gave them a bit more information.
Your example is neither complicated (correct), or intuitive (incorrect).
Somebody stopping by and playing with Linux will probably have *no* clue what the etc direcotry is, or even to look there. And then telling them what it is for (everyone I have heard has described it as "configuration settings"), they would never guess to *look* there for starting and stopping applications, they would probably look in the
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
And this, people, is why Linux will *never* own significant acrege in the desktop market: The people who drive most Linux development *are not* interested in desktop usability and *user* experience. This is not a troll / flamebait / cut, it's simply the truth, the definition of "usability" is very different from Linux developer to "average Joe User".
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Because I find that systems/network tools are one of Linux's strongest points. I mean let's see what I need for doing the systems support part of my job:
--E-Mail: Check. Linux has Thunderbird, which is what I use under Windows.
--Web: Check. Again, same thing as I'd use under Windows (Firefox).
--SSH: Check. Maybe the command line SSH client isn't quite as pretty, but it works in ever way as well.
--Remote Desktop: Check. Not as slick as the Windows one, but doesn't lack for anything important.
--Text editor: Check. I like UltraEdit better, but there are plenty that work fine for Linux.
--Ability to map SMB and/or NFS shares: Check.
That's pretty much it for the major tools I need. So long as I can check on the problems that need solving, and get to the servers that they need solving on, that's all my system needs to do for that part of the job. Linux does that just fine. Hell, so does Solaris.
However that doesn't carry over to other areas necessarily. A good example of where it doesn't is media production. The tools for Linux are sub par at best in my experience. In theory it might be possible to do what I need, but in practice I have never been able to figure out how and it is just too much effort. For Windows I just install Sony Vegas and go, it makes everything easy. In Linux it is fighting with many different tools, some of which are quite hard to get compiled (no binary distribution) none of which seem to be able to do everything that is needed.
So picking an area that Linux is strongest at isn't necessarily that useful, especially when talking Linux on the desktop. I mean I've known sysadmins that use Solaris as their desktop OS, doesn't mean that anyone would suggest it is intended for prime time desktop usage. Also, sysadmins are (or at least should be) more able to deal with some of the problems you'll encounter. Dropping to a command line it something a sysadmin should be able to do. A normal user? Not so much. If it isn't pointy and clicky with everything spelled out, it may be past their competence.
You're right. When 99% of computer users out there hit a snag with Windows they have their local Linux user come over and fix it for them.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Maybe try digiKam or F-Spot. Brief overview here but no reason not to try them both and see which you prefer.
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
Linux expert gives linux positive review and shuns windows on a linux site, as reported by linux-associated news site. Story at 8!
"The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
Are you sure? The article mentions Symantec more often than Microsoft. I don't doubt the moral of the story--the advantages of Ubuntu over XP--but the body of the article if FUD.
He makes it sound like Symantec AV is a) absolutely 100% required to run Windows, yet at the same time, b) makes Windows 100% unusable. In fact, neither is true. Okay, there is some evidence for point b, but point a is crap. There are plenty of other options for Windows anti-virus. Many are not resource hogs, and some are even free (as in doughnuts).
When he's not complaining about Symantec, he mostly addresses ease of installation. Yes, Windows is pain to install, even before you get to applications, with the patches and security updates and reboots, etc. But that should be a minor point of comparison. Ubuntu beats Windows on day 1, but what about day 2 until day [get new computer/decide to wipe system and reinstall everything]? It's worth my while to put in a few extra hours on day 1 if that effort will save me a few minutes a day for the next few hundred days.
So aside from Symantec and OS installation, what about a comparison of everyday computer use? He addresses several issues that have nothing to with Ubuntu vs. Windows. Backups? Okay, you can use the same backup procedure for your desktop and servers with Ubuntu because your servers are linux. If my servers are Windows, doesn't that same point become an advantage to running Windows on the desktop? And printing from the internet, what does this have to do with desktop OS?
I do not doubt the point he is trying to make--Ubuntu is a good desktop OS and has many advantages over MS Windows--I just don't see much of a valid argument made here to support that point.
okay shootout time somebody needs to get a pair of real live Amish Farmers and 2 identical boxes one with Windows Vista and one with KUbuntu 7.04 on it
rate the 2 on
1 office stuff (write letters print stuff maybe whip up a spreadsheet )
2 Online stuff (email and surfing)
3 Multimedia (cds and DVDs)
4 General Look and Feel
5 System stuff (getting around the filesystem organizing stuff ect)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
A page on "linux.sys-con.com" finds Linux superior to Windows! Pardon me while I climb back onto the chair I just fell out of.
After our warranty ran out on our ThinkPad T40, I decided to give Ubuntu a try, and am so far very pleased with it. The install was pretty straightforward, configuration was smooth, and we had no hardware/driver issues to speak of. Connecting up with our wireless router was a breeze, and really the only glitch has to do with our CUPS-enabled printer.
Frankly I was glad to find Ubuntu this easy to install and use because I thought our laptop was done for. Like the author, we had a corrupt Windows partition, and had to start from scratch. After we got everything installed and configured (less than an hour), I was on the deck working on docs and getting things done.
Anyone with a T40 or similar should give some serious thought to at least trying out Ubuntu. While it won't do everything a Linux admin would want, it's more than enough to keep users productive.
- Jack
Based on my visit to that site, I can only assume that the developer studied at the Myspace College of Web Design.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
has it already been 12 hours since the last "Ubuntu is great!" article?
Just um, how often do we need to see these, anyway?
"Ubuntu" is an ancient african word. It means "I can't configure debian"
I'm pretty certain it was late 2001.
And this guy has only been using XP for four months?
Call me unimpressed with his "great position" to evaluate software.
I don't want this to come off as a flame but it may or at least it may come off as a troll but here goes.
As a unix\linux\windows admin who spent a great deal of time in a windows\linux environment, I find windows to be more difficult to secure. Unix and linux have certain things layered well for my way of thinking.
Common driver locations , common binary locations , no registry that people can bury crap into to auto load stuff. Having to assume everybody who uses the ms machine is an idiot and lock them down in the Ad profile versus the user being told basically your stupid and you can't mess up this system without a major effort. The one thing I usually don't like is not every program loads the config files to a specific folder. I would love to see that but it probably wouldn't happen.
Windows admins are a dime a dozen for a reason , it's easy to find some people who claim to know what they are doing. Not so easy in the unix or linux worlds.But I do believe in using the right OS for the job that needs to be done , and usually that MS for the desktop and Solaris or linux for the servers.
This package Does Not Contain a Winner
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Try Digikam, great application for image managing. F-spot is good if user only have few hundred photos. I manage my over 42 000 picture archive with digikam and it is faster than Lightroom.
For Gnome users (ubuntu) Digikam isn't so great because it is KDE related software and Gnome apps dont know how to use KIO slaves so well, thats why gnome users should try F-spot first.
Surely you jest!
I've used rsync for backups for years. I back up my mail, my Thunderbird data, and "my document" directory (i.e., /home/xxxx/). One of these backup commands looks like this and sits in a single shell script and runs from cron once a day (I've already sent the ssh key to the backup target server so no need to manually login to the backup server for this command to run):
/home/xxxx/.mozilla-thunderbird/ root@mycomcastipnumber:/hdb/ibmt60-ubuntu-mozilla- tbird/ >> /home/xxxx/backup-.txt
rsync -avgz
I'm sure plenty of linux admins promote the use of both rsync as a backup/restore mechanism and the use of the root login over the internet! They all happen to be 13, but still...
perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
Doesn't happen in Opera 9.21.8776!
.pac files
= 19410153 & it's methods for layered security outlined therein...
/. even stated it in the past)... & STOPBADWARE.ORG gets its data from GOOGLE (as to sites that bear malicious content & GOOGLE's mantra "Don't be EVIL" is good enough for me I suppose, lol!))
I am doing the following:
1.) Using its built-in popup blocker
2.) Combining that with
3.) Combining THAT even moreso w/ filtering custom css stuff I use
4.) Not allowing JAVA or JavaScript in my webbrowsers on the public internet (some sites I have to make exception to, Opera allows this though, by site in its rightclick on a page "EDIT SITE PREFERENCES" popup menu options)
5.) Disallowing FLASH via registry hacks to the Win32 OS I use (Windows Server 2003 SP #2, FULLY hardened, per this URL -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=237507&cid
6.) & lastly, a custom adbanner blocking HOSTS file (referred to in the URL above)!
(In regards to the latter - I have one built up from years of doing this on my own & lately, from http://stopbadware.org/ , & that has over 90,000 sites in it, as of today that could be banners that suck up my bandwidth, OR WORSE, deliver me "Mal-Content" (pun intended, because this has been shown to be the case sometimes, yes, believe-it-or-not, in adbanners having code that is malicious in them the past 2-4 years now, & articles here on
Anyhow, sorry webmasters of the planet - I am a HUGE fan of HOSTS files that block banners, because of the above, & the fact it's MY MONEY I spend to go online, & I want ALL OF MY POSSIBLE BANDWIDTH!
APK
"Virii" is not now and has never been a word.
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
windows: Start->Control Panel->Display->Settings and select your screen resolution from the slider bar at the bottom left.
Firefox+Adblock Plus+Noscript+Privoxy. One of them got it.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
OK. The desktop metaphor; you work with documents, files, folders. That isn't what happens on Windows. On windows, you deal with menus and applications then you have to go search for your documents and folders. I can see why it happens, each application needs to make itself the centre of your attention so that you remember to go buy it again when it's time to upgrade. It's job is to make itself far more important than all of the other applications. So it hides your files and documents away and you have to access them through the file->open menu within the application and it sticks an application icon on your desktop... Doesn't make any sense within the desktop metaphor. That's why Windows sucks as a desktop. You can change it of course, and I have, it makes it more usable but it's a pain.
Ubuntu gets it more right than Windows. The applications themselves are less important, partly because they're mostly free, they get out of the way. Then you have the folders right there on the desktop so you can access the documents themselves directly. The application becomes just a tool to work on the information, which is what it's supposed to be. Ubuntu is actually easier to use than Windows. The metaphor makes sense.
Deleted
If you don't want to block Flash completely, adding "*/commercials/*" to Adblock Plus' blocklist gets rid of that hideous thing on the right side (which, if you had your speakers on, comes up with sound automatically).
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Yes, Ubuntu won't let us use all the other shit we've been locked into by distasteful business practices, so let's keep our blinders on and pretend that anything different is bad, because it's not what we already have...
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Reformat and reinstall the internet.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I think, for many, the more accurate translation of "Ubuntu" is: "I can configure Debian, but I also have a life."
Lol, he might be a troll but he has a point. Perhaps we need stories that are a little less along the lines of "obvious". Please Eds? Thanks
Microsoft does not forbid OEMs from shipping disks with their computers - instead, they give the OEM an option as whether to ship the disks or provide a Recovery Disk/Partition system of their own design. There are many not-so-large OEM's that ship their computers with a Windows DVD that's only difference from the Retail disk is the label.
As for not being able to give out the disks later, as a replacement? Wrongo! Again, that's OEM policy, not Microsoft's.
Blame the OEM for the crappy recovery process and lack of disks, not Microsoft.
>> but I don't suppose you'll be getting around to that until about 2011.
Makes perfect sense to me as Vista is a bloated piece of crap.