To all linux and windows users, please help me choose the better option.

[Hired Mind]

As always, it really depends on what you want to do with your operating system. (All opinion here) Security - Linux, definitely. The OS is open for the whole world to see, so more security holes get found and fixed before it gets into a stable/popular distribution. In a security-critical server app, with no dependencies on Windows, I'd definitely go with Linux (or preferably *BSD). Of course this limits you to using a stable/popular distribution. If you run the bleeding-edge revision, you're probably going to have just as many security holes as Windows. Programming Experience - Windows. I've done both Linux and Windows programming, and in years past (with techs like MVC and ATL - bleh!) it really would have been a toss up. But in the last few years, Microsoft has moved ahead with techs like WCF, WPF/Silverlight, EF4, etc. There are analogous tools for Linux, integrated into one platform. I've seen people argue that Visual Studio is "locked down" so you're stuck with what MS gives you, but that isn't true. I've written several extensions for VS to do company-specific things - the platform is very extensible. You can write a tool to do anything that isn't already done by VS (like my favorite, ReSharper). Support - Toss up. Linux has much more online support, but it's spread out all over the place. If you've got some Google-fu skills, you'll find the answer. Microsoft has less support, but it's more centralized. A lot of people make the argument that just being able to call someone for support is necessary, but generally if professional programmers can't figure it out, it's a bug. And it's not like MS is going to fast-track a bug for you unless you routinely write 6 figure checks. Here[^]'s a bug that I've been dealing with for months. Edit: Forgot to add: My personal setup is a Windows 7 Pro PC with gobs of ram and a copy of VirtualBox, for those occasions where Linux is a better choice for a task.

Before .NET 4.0, object Universe = NULL;

modified on Tuesday, April 26, 2011 4:23 PM

[PIEBALDconsult]

Pmwanzia wrote:

other than being free

I got Win 7 Ultimate for free :badger: ... Visual Studio 2010 Pro for free :badger: ...

[dawmail333]

Linux (Ubuntu et al) definitely has its sweet spots. If you don't need to rely on specific Windows software, it's entirely possible you could do better with it than Windows 7. I rely on a LOT of such software, but my laptop dual-boots Win7/Mint (A variant of Ubuntu, but I wanted LXDE, a very lightweight graphics environment that adds hours(!) to battery life). All in all, it depends on whether you need the specific Windows stuff and you're willing to poke around and learn a bit of new stuff. If so, Linux might just be a better fit for you. P.S. I've tried Arch, but I definitely prefer Ubuntu, seeing I don't have to build EVERYTHING from scratch: the modularisation sounds like a good idea, but there's a HELL of a lot of config files just to get a decent (e.g. smooth fonts et al) GUI... P.S.S. I'm really not liking the looks of Unity. On my laptop (netbook), it just seems to obscure everything behind a few extra layers, makes the file-manager impossible to find, and takes three seconds(!) to open the top left menu X| EDIT: Did I mention how impressed I am with Wine? Ooh boy, Wine does a really awesome job. You just want a bit more juice, but it really is impressive.

Don't forget to rate my post if it helped! ;) "He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends." "His mother should have thrown him away, and kept the stork." "There's nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won't cure." "He loves nature, in spite of what it did to him."

[Member 4138017]

A virus for Linux is a lot harder to write than it was for Windows XP. Because the practise of running as root (administrator) is discouraged. Windows Vista and later doesn't allow one to run everything with administrator priviledges now either so they've caught up. Of course Linux now has MAC and windows doesn't to my knowledge. So again if you want to make a system more secure you can implement MAC rules for common programs so that vulnerabilities in them did not allow the attacker to gain more priviledges than that program needs to be operational. One of the newer Linux distros that is specifically focused on security runs every application in it's own VM (thus every app runs in an isolated environment) - another thing not possible with Windows. Most of the programs you install on Linux you install from a software repository. So technically Linux is still more secure, but it's not that obvious anymore. A more prominent thing (and Windows is catching up here too) is the App Store. That is, all programs being installed from a trusted source. This feature has been available on Linux for ages now. Linux also needs less hacks because of its initial design philosophy being inherited from UNIX and its policies (e.g. the UAC is a hack). And because of that it needs less resources to run. It's not all great though. Linux is not supported by as many device manufacturers as Windows, thus a lot less drivers for it. Less games too. Some obscure software you might not find for it that exists on Windows, most of the software that you use can be replaced with open source alternatives, but you need to relearn to use it and most people don't like to do that. Some proprietary formats are not supported well either (understandable I'd say)

[Rich Koshak]

Every few years I go through the Windows/Linux/Mac question myself. The last time I came up on the side of Windows primarily because I have a good deal of software that I really love that is only available on Windows (OneNote being the most important). You will have to repartition but the Ubuntu installer will do it for you. Once installed, Ubuntu will be able to see your Windows drive, but I don't think Windows will be able to see your Ubuntu drive. https://help.ubuntu.com/community/WindowsDualBoot[^] If dual booting is an issue for you right now, you can always install Linux (or Windows) into a virtual machine. I personally like Virtual Box though have used VMWare and VirtualPC with success. Also, Cygwin can be a happy middle ground. It is basically a Linux stack that runs on Windows. I usually have Cygwin installed where I can on Windows just so I can have a good command line shell.

[Mike Winiberg]

Perhaps it's just me, but I've used many dev tools over the years from full IDEs like Visual Studio, Netbeans, Eclipse, through great editors like Slickedit, MultiEdit and the original Brief. I've used Borland and Zorland/Zortech tools, Parallel C/C++, GNU, Mono, you name it, when it comes to dev environments. Like some other very sensible respondents here, it depends on what you want to do, but I felt I just had to respond to the above comment, because of all the IDEs I've used, VS has got to be one of the worst! I've developed for DOS, Windows, Xenix, Linux in Assembler, Pascal, C, C++, Java, VB; for web in JSP/AJAX, Java and PHP, for embedded systems in 800x, Z80, 6509, 68K Assembler, C, Occam, Transputer assembler (I even had a hand in developing the assembler for the Transputer), Parallel C/C++ etc. In other words I'm a real old git! However, it is all too easy to become so used to and familiar with your main environment (eg Windows/Visual Studio) that you never experience or become aware of the alternatives out there or realise that MS, for all it's good points, is not the only player in town, or even the best one. If you can't imagine anything better than VS, I can only recommend that you get out more :) mike

[diegowald]

Both have pros and cons. You have to try both and decide later. I am Linux user (at home) and I've found that I don't have to maintain my home computer the way I had to maintain it when it had Windows. The maintenance of a Linux computer is easier than a Windows computer, because Linux doesn't have virus, or at least not the ammount of virus that Windows have. Windows is easy to install things, and reinstall also. Linux, is easier. To find a program? In windows you have to google it and buy the program or a free version of it. In Linux you have repositories, which are pre-configured in your installation. It's simple. You access a package manager (yum, in fedora, apt in Ubuntu) and choose the program and it starts downloading and installing it on your computer. Really easy. Regarding applications? There are thousands of applications in those repositories. From Office suites (Open Office, Libre Office, KOffice, etc), video players, games (I don't know which games you can find), development IDES (lot of IDES), 3D design (Blender, or example). All of this, free to use. On the other hand, when you have to do a particular task, you have to read and learn how can you do it in Linux. It is sure you will have to use the command line, and it is hard to start, but you will learn how to use the command line and soon you'll be a command line fan. In my personal experience, I've found that is hard to begin in Linux than Windows, but once you started both OS are usable. Regards, Diego

[John Oxley]

I disagree. There are plenty of hackers looking at Linux. Even taking viruses into consideration, if you run a Windows box without good protection, you deserve every single thing that happens to you. Stop breating my air! Your main vulnerability points I feel (completely unjustified) are the apps you use, in particular your browser. Throwing away the red herring of security, look at the rest. If you either want to play games use Windows. That's it. Btw, wine (Windows Emulator) does not work. Neither does that wine rip off to let you play games. It takes 17 times as long, you have to sacrifice a goat and performance sucks. If you're a Windows or .Net developer, use Windows. And Visual Studio is better than Monodevelop or Vim (Go googling for vim integration into VS2010, it rocks!). (Side note: everything is better than emacs, even notepad. Yes I said it! And I believe it!) If you have an iPhone, use Windows. No itunes on Linux. Yes you can plug it in through Amarok etc, but Apple stuff does not play well with non Apple stuff. Ease of use is simple. If you know Windows, it's a win. If you don't, toss a coin. If you're a networking guru, run Linux. You should be. It's just a gajillion times nicer. If you admin a windows network, run windows. If you admin a *nix network, run Linux. If you admin a mixed network, run Windows and buy SecureCRT. Learn how ssh keys work. Performance wise, yes you can slim Linux down more than Windows, but then you don't get all the features. They're 6 to 1, half a dozen to the other. If you want to get the best possible working environment, use linux. Warning: It will take some years. I've put 14 in so far and am getting close. If you enjoy playing with computers (I guess so cos you're here), run Linux. If your girlfriend/mother/sister non technically competent relationship person has to use the machine, Windows. Yes, in theory you can teach them how to use Linux. Also, in theory, theory is the same as in practice... I've been running Windows since 3.11 in the early nineties and Linux since Slackware 3.5 in the late nineties. Both OSes have improved incredibly in terms of usability, stability, features and getting out of my way so I can get shit done. Windows has a HUGE lead on games, and the edge on Windows development. The rest of it comes down to preference and experience. From a fresh install, it takes about 3 days to get a Windows box the way I like it. As I said earlier, I've been working on my

[Ron44077]

To me, the answer is simple. The better choice is the one that someone's willing to pay you to work on ;) For me, that's been a LOT more on the W7/.net side of things, though I've also done a good bit of Linux stuff. Way too many zealots out there on both sides of this. It's not a good idea to get all personally invested in any technology - in 10 years, they could both be history. I agree with the posters here that it all depends on what you're doing. If you don't see a clear choice for your needs, try out both sides and see which fits better for you. And DON'T sink any anchors into whatever ground you find yourself in.

[Lost User]

You ain't do nothing on Linux. Like World of Warcraft and stuff.

[thomas michaud]

I do NOT recommend Linux to anyone. That said, it sounds like you got into a fanboy flame war with some Linux fanboys and lost. And now you're looking for ammo.

[Alexander DiMauro]

I don't see why it even matters. Dual boot. Get the best of both worlds. All my computers are dual-boot Windows 7 and Linux Mint (better than Ubuntu, IMHO). That being said, I use the Windows side more often, because of Visual Studio and general availability of apps. The Linux side is better for Ruby/Rails development, which I do on occasion. And, thanks to JetBrains, I have the exact same dev environment for Web (WebStorm), Rails (RubyMine), Java/Android (IntelliJ), regardless of which OS I use. I've even tried Mono for .NET on Linux, but it's always a few steps behind, and I'm doing MVC3 work right now, so I stick to Visual Studio for the most part. I don't really find either one to be so much 'better' than the other. It depends on what you are using it for, and/or, which game you want to play! ;)

[kmoorevs]

Absolutely agree with the suggestion to run both either as a dual boot, or run a linux flavor(s) as a virtual from Win7. I would suggest the latter option first. That way you get the best of both worlds, and can try different distros to see which one(s) best suit your needs.

"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse

[Lost User]

Come to think of it, the whole universe is stupid enough to not understand the awesomeness of Linux. Only a diehard Linux fanboy can appreciate the depth of the challenges it presents. The rest of the ignorant herd just wants a computer to use.

[Lost User]

John Oxley wrote:

If your girlfriend/mother/sister has to use the machine, Windows. Yes, in theory you can teach them how to use Linux. Also, in theory, theory is the same as in practice...

Oh, please, give it a break :mad:

It’s not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it’s because we do not dare that things are difficult. ~Seneca

[T800G]

There's no Steam/Portal 2 for linux. Do you need another reason?

[Nelson Kosta Souto]

You can use SharpDevelop, is a free IDE or install wine to run visual studio on linux.

NKS

[malpeli]

Buy a Mac and get the best of the 2 worlds. :laugh:

[Bit Smacker]

Windows 7 (or, in my case, Vista x64) could jump to a games menu (Steam apps browser?) instead of a desktop and I'd be happy -- at least on my game machine. Any other type of software is up in the air for personal preference choice, especially with Open Source being so prolific. But, if you're a computer gamer, you're going to be missing out unless you go with Windows. The X-Box made it really easy for games to be ported between that game console and Windows, so Windows will always have more games available than any other platform. The only way I see this changing is if we see game consoles take a queue from smart phones and go with a Linux OS core. If lots of Linux-based game consoles started floating around, you can bet that Linux would quickly become the next gaming OS. Until that amazing event comes to pass, I'm going to just stick with Windows as my gaming OS.

[Ajay Vijayvargiya]

Security? Which flavour of *nix support NTFS or Access Based security than that 'rwx' based security on file? Almost all kernel objects have security attached with them? If you talk about OS security, where no one can attack - that's a different perspective, since not many are attacking Linux systems. And for programming environment and debugging-support, Windows is lightyears ahead of Linux. Windows has WaitForDebugEvent API, surrounded with other APIs that support native debugging. Linux has just a 'ptrace' which doesnt support multithreaded debugging, debugging a UI application, 'Edit-and-continue' feature and things like that. May be companies like Google, have developed their own debugging-system at OS level. I dont understand how programmers can live without a good development environment? Yes, for sure, networking is (probably) better than Windows. Someone said, down there in one of the posts that for Linux programmers there is more material available - I totally disagree. Take a look at pthread_create and CreateThread docs. Entire net would show the same 'man pthread_create' stuff, and just the MSDN doc says much more than for CreateThread, forget more info elsewhere.