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

[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.

[Steve Naidamast]

If you are using Ubuntu or SUSE Linux than you have made a good choice in that area. However, as it regards, which is better, there is no real answer. Linux is promoted by academics, scientists and hard-core technical personnel. This is one of the reasons it took so long to define a pleasing desk-top experience, with Ubuntu probably being the top distro available in that regard. Windows on the other hand is promoted by consumers and technical personnel who need to get their jobs done. This is not to say that you cannot do the same implementations with Linux but with Windows there is a lot more available support for what you want to accomplish. Try as it might, right now Linux is dead on the desktop because of too many distros all competing for the same things, most of them not all that good. In terms of security; first off there is no such thing. No matter what os you finally settle on, the attacker has all the advantages simply because he or she is far more focused on succeeding in making a breach compared to the defender who is always concentrating on other tasks. Windows is attacked far more often than Linux for the reasons that most of the posters here have voiced; its simply more prevalent so an attack on Windows gets a "bigger bang for the buck". If Linux suddenly became the dominant os the same thing would happen to it. That being said, Microsoft has done a relatively good job of beefing up Windows security and a number of studies have confirmed this. In addition, if you use high quality anti-virus software (Norton & McAfee are useless junk) you should experience no problems. In terms of development, both platforms practically have the same range of options along with the databases to support them. Java works fine on both operating systems while if you want to use .NET, you can use MONO on Linux, which is the open-source .NET project that is now fairly mature. In the end, make the decision on your own for what you you need to do and what your firm requires. Listening to 3rd party advice on this issue will only to serve to confuse more...

Steve Naidamast Black Falcon Software, Inc. blackfalconsoftware@ix.netcom.com

[User 3760773]

ahmed zahmed wrote:

My understanding (and limited experience) is that windows is easier to install and configure, especially when you want to tweak some esoteric parameter or feature. Linux is getting much better in this regard, but I don't think it'll ever really approach the ease-of-use of windows.

This is not quite true. If you are using a 'modern' Linux distribution (Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.) installation is a snap. Stick in the CD, boot, answer a few questions (similar to what is asked by a Windows installation) and say go. Walk away and come back to a *completely* installed computer -- OS, development tools, etc. Oh, and then you only have to run update *1* time to get everything up to date. Last time I re-installed my Windows machine I had to run updated about 9 times (rebooting each time) before the OS was completely up to date. Then I started installing my apps and updating them. As long as your distributions support the programs you are using, Linux is much easier. On the other hand it can take days to figure out all the dependencies require to install something if the distribution does not provide it ...

[Snowman58]

I have run both an Ubuntu desk top and Windows 7 desk top for a couple years now. As an OS, there is little difference to choose from; - They are different in detail, but both are very competent. - You only do an occasional install, but for me the Linux installations have been faster and on older hardware Linux is less hassle. Windows makes you go searching for old drivers, etc. - Windows has GUI’s for virtually any configuration parameter. You have to use a Terminal window and obscure command line code to fine tune Linux. Think Win 3.1 level with a mix of GUI and DOS. But such fine tuning is rare. - Linux is faster and requires fewer resources – great for extending the life of an older machine. - Updates are equally frequent, but Linux rarely, if ever forces you to reboot after an update. Windows may force you to reboot several times just to finish one set of updates. - Less malware on Linux – not because it is more secure, but because who would waste their time writing malware for an OS with such a small market share? - You can get virtually any application from graphics editing to office suites to audio/video editing or playback, even some cool games. And they are almost all free! So am I a Linux fan boy or use the Linux box all day? Nope, when I need to get something done I use the Windows machine. Even the best applications for Linux simply can’t match the better Windows applications. They lack consistent user interfaces, they fall short in features, etc., etc. The applications seem to be five yrs behind and except for Android app’s I do not see much application development happening.

Melting Away www.deals-house.com www.innovative--concepts.com

[wbaxter37]

Don't worry about which is better. You really should get to know your way around both. If you play with a modern Linux distro learn to get around on the command line. You really should get familiar with the Windows command line and PowerShell, too. Whether I use a Windows, Linux, or MAC machine I find myself turning off all the silly crap that reviewers seem to like so much. I find a lot of what gets the buzz in a GUI irritating (JASI pronounced "jazzy" = Just Another S****y Interface). The NAc garbage can raises my blood pressure every time I use it. A reallt useful exercise is to take something you're familiar with, preferably something you've written, and try to do tha same thing on a different platform. Take a Ruby script or class and write it in C#, take a Windows script and do the same thing in bash. I run Win7 at home, where I double as an IT guy for the family. I run WinXP and Win7 at work for manufacturing software development and deployment. I test the code I write (in C#, Ruby, batch, C/C++) on both both OS's using Win7Pro's built-in virtual machine. Our operators only know Windows, so Linux/UNIX would be useless. I also have to interface with a lot of hardware and have libraries availble for Windows but not for Linux. I run Ubuntu in VirtualBox to develop Linux code (bash, Ruby, C/C++) to run in our products, which run a Debian strain of Linux. As far as security, most of the cybercrime these days is not focused on viruses or hacking, but on "social-engineering" attacks. This is a fancy way of saying grifting (con jobs). It's easier to get through people than computer systems. Whatever OS you use keep it up to date. I've started playing with Qt, NetBeans, and Eclipse for cross-platform development. Qt is particularly good (the other two are very slow operators) and also has a cross-platform (Win/Linux/MAC OS X) applications framework. It's the only tool I've found that comes close to VisualStudio in making it easy to put together GUI applications. You can design an app top down and play with it before you get into the nitty-gritty of

[Sterling Camden independent consultant]

Neither. Go with FreeBSD.

Contains coding, but not narcotic.

[ajhampson]

You do know that a huge number of servers run Linux, right? That is one very large attack vector if Linux security is so weak and "full of holes." :-D Just sayin'

[da808wiz]

command line freak! I'm raising my fist in the air, like I'm holding onto something that's invisible there. But based on this guy's questions, I don't think he's ready for BSD. That's like throwing him in the deep end of the pool to teach him to swim, and throwing a few pirannas in there along with him to motivate.

[da808wiz]

I don't know what kind of user you are, but I am a command line freak, of sorts. Although ubuntu does not drive users to the shell aka command prompt, I like the fact that so many tools are made in their raw form (gui-less) and available via apt-get install on ubuntu. You an almost assume they are there, and do an apt-get install [keyword] to find the tool you are looking for, whether it be video file conversion, audio file conversion, or even wifi "tools" Also, I know some of the tools are available on Windows, but they usually aren't the latest releases, and they run slower on Windows. The difference is so much so, that I have resorted to taking my new laptop, wiping the OS, installing ubuntu, then running Windows 7 inside a VM. I recently had to reload my last ubuntu laptop as a Windows PC as a gift. I have since been struggling to do things in Windows and find it very dissatisfying, to a point where I am tempted to buy a new laptop and load ubuntu on it. If you like to fiddle and take control of things to a point where the gui does not satisfy, ubuntu or any linux OS gives you that power. If you want to play minesweeper or solitaire without having to run Windows in a VM, then stick to Windows OS. I do consulting and I have never found a client whom I felt compelled to suggest they run ubuntu, or any linux OS, for that matter. I am busy enough as it is, and I know those free phone calls will kill me as they struggle with linux. I just tell them to be careful tell them, "Do not click on anything that says it can fix the problem, assume it's a hoax, unless you want me to come in and fix it - for a price, of course. Save your money by closing the window and don't even acknowle the question on your screen." I did have a ubuntu PC which got a virus on it, but I was extremely careless to a point where I ran just about anything just to try it and see, something I would never do on a Windows box. Eventually the system became pretty much unresponsive and was running tasks I had not installed. At that point I loaded the latest ubuntu again and it hummed along fine. I am a LITTLE more careful now on ubuntu, and have not had any problems. Well, until I gave away the ubuntu PC as a Windows one, of course.

[Lost User]

No technical fanboi arguments just simple logic on the main reason I continue to be a Windows developer: If I throw 100 rocks in all directions, 95 or more of them will hit Windows machines, 5 or less will hit Linux or other type machines. I'd say that covers it. -Max :D

[Sterling Camden independent consultant]

I think the piranhas belong in the Windows story. FreeBSD is more like finding yourself in the middle of the ocean on a beautiful yacht that is fully stocked, but the engine is completely disassembled. There is, however, a very good manual.

Contains coding, but not narcotic.

[Sterling Camden independent consultant]

"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." --Bertrand Russell

Contains coding, but not narcotic.

[bcw1000]

"other than being free" This is ambiguous - you might be clued up on this, but many aren't, so I want to comment. If you say that you are free, it doesn't mean we can have you for no money - it means we can't lock you up at all. You are Free. It's a recent historical development to equate freedom with price (and I think it's also a nasty comment on what our current societies value). Free Software is software that can't be taken away from people. That's the entire idea - freedom. Some people are willing to donate their work for others to use and license it so that no one can take it away. Some go as far as licensing their code so that anyone that wants to base their work on it must contribute their improvements back to the community as well - otherwise, write your own from scratch, and then you can do as you like with it. I live in a society that wants me to earn and have money and I don't have a problem with that. I code for my living and I'm valued for it. I don't mind working with a group of others (a "Company" of others) to provide something of value we can be paid for. No problem. At the same time, I value building up a body of software anyone can work with as long as they are community-minded. I think this is a good thing and benefits all of us to some extent. I license several projects I have written under free licenses. So keep in mind Freedom != $0 Those are very different. Cheers bcw1000

[Gary Huck]

Ah, I see - that's why he modified his post :)

[Gary Huck]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. They're all the same only different. It comes down to this: "What will you get paid for?". The arguments are old and tired. Oh, *nix is free? Yeah, until you need something like a database or sorting utility. Windoz, well, we're not running 3.1 any more - even the *nix guys use Win for their workstations. Don't feel stupid - *nix guys are hard-core diehards. They are very proud to still use vi. Best operating system ever is/was VAX/VMS ...

[Lost User]

Sterling Camden / independent consultant wrote:

"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
--Bertrand Russell

Very profound, but I don't think Russell was talking about marketing a product. I guess you're implying that the market is "foolish" for having chosen Windows as it's platform. Either that or you're calling me foolish for capitalizing on it. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I'm impressed (NOT). -Max

[athenatennis com sg]

I just find it easier to do new things on Windows, and even worse, I'm actually beginning to admire Microsoft now that they are no longer the single most dominant IT company around. Their .net and Visual Studio platform is very productive and I think its overtaken Java now, though in the end, they both allow you to do pretty much the same things if you know how.

[Florin Jurcovici 0]

What I write is from the point of view of a home user. From the point of view of a company, unless you are constrained by legacy applications running only on Windows, and which can't run properly with wine, I think there's no point in using Windows. Both initial and operating costs are much lower with Linux than with Windows on the desktop, as any serious case study demonstrates - please be aware, however, that there are lots of flawed case studies on the 'Net, mostly sponsored by MS or by organizations sponsored by MS. (For instance, a skilled Linux administrator may cost double of what a skilled Windows administrator costs, but can easily administer a network which is maybe ten times as large, without the need to invest into expensive administrative tools.) If you'd know Windows better, you'd know that Windows security is plagued by one essential design flaw, present there since the first versions of Windows, which couldn't be removed due to backwards compatibility. I don't know W7 well enough to know how much of its evil effects are still in place, but the problem is this: since the whole Windows API was designed at a time when there wasn't even a shadow of an access rights system in Windows, there are still many operations which any application needs to perform but which require administrative privileges. This is the backdoor through which all serious security attacks on Windows boxes happen - buffer and stack over-/underflows can cause arbitrary code to be executed in contexts beyond the user's security context. Since Linux had a pretty simple and straightforward access control mechanism in place since its inception, there's no such problem with Linux. I know MS would have you believe that it's just the sheer number of Windows boxes out there that attracts virus writers to Windows, but this is stupid, if you think a little about it. Why would somebody spend significant time developing a virus which needs to get to at least a few tens of thousands of Windows boxes to be heard of, instead of spending the same amount of time on developing a virus which could just target a few hundreds or thousands of essential servers (like for instance an entire Google data center), if Linux and Windows would be equally insecure? (However, most attacks on Windows boxes aren't all that smart, and rely more on user stupidity than on OS faults. So W7 is probably an improvement on previous Windows versions from a security standpoint - can't really judge this.) As for installation and configuration easiness, I'd say this