Linux vs. Windows
-
Anyone else tired of the comparisons (or more accurately, the slamming of MS)? Things have gotten so bad here at work that my boss now wanders around bad mouthing MS for things that have nothing to do with his problems. He seems to think that if he bad-mouths MS, then he must be technically sharp. Example - We were having troubles with our email system (MS Exchange) and immediately, the MS slams started flying about. As it turns out, the problem was in the firewall (running Linux) but not a word was said once that was found to be the culprit. Anyway, as I read more and more on the web - it seems that these Linux vs. Windows comparisons just cannot be avoided. Most of them are quite childish. I have a neutral opinion on it. I think MS does a great job of providing a fairly easy to use OS for the majority of PC users. I also think that Linux is a great OS for developers and technically proficient users. The thing is, these harcore Linux people seem to think that everyone (including my retired parents who barely know how to operate a mouse) would be better off using Linux. To sum it up - I just think that people are comparing apples to oranges (not the Apple of Apple computers, of course). Each time I read one of these "Linux rules, MS sucks" comments, it plants a very negative seed in my mind in relation to Linux. As a developer, I want to remain neutral but I can't help but feel turned off by all of this crap.
-
Anyone else tired of the comparisons (or more accurately, the slamming of MS)? Things have gotten so bad here at work that my boss now wanders around bad mouthing MS for things that have nothing to do with his problems. He seems to think that if he bad-mouths MS, then he must be technically sharp. Example - We were having troubles with our email system (MS Exchange) and immediately, the MS slams started flying about. As it turns out, the problem was in the firewall (running Linux) but not a word was said once that was found to be the culprit. Anyway, as I read more and more on the web - it seems that these Linux vs. Windows comparisons just cannot be avoided. Most of them are quite childish. I have a neutral opinion on it. I think MS does a great job of providing a fairly easy to use OS for the majority of PC users. I also think that Linux is a great OS for developers and technically proficient users. The thing is, these harcore Linux people seem to think that everyone (including my retired parents who barely know how to operate a mouse) would be better off using Linux. To sum it up - I just think that people are comparing apples to oranges (not the Apple of Apple computers, of course). Each time I read one of these "Linux rules, MS sucks" comments, it plants a very negative seed in my mind in relation to Linux. As a developer, I want to remain neutral but I can't help but feel turned off by all of this crap.
Luckily, it's generally just us geeks that see and hear this crap. I could care less what OS is out there as long as it's easy for me to target with whatever products I'm writing. Personally, I'm a big fan of Mono and .NET because it's nearly to the point where I can develop one application and then run it anywhere I want (a little over-generalized, but close enough). Mono brought me back to Linux, but only for curiosity and only because I have a secondary PC I use for this kind of "research". Since my departure many years ago in college (sometime around 1997) the past year has been interesting to sample in the Linux world. I started with Fedora, then Suse, Debian, and then finally Ubuntu where I am very happy. Linux has made amazing strides over the past few years, but it's still far from the point of being easily usable. Still, I'm not knocking it. I enjoy the technical challenge. On the other hand, Windows is still on my primary PC and I'd do a LOT to have a Mac sitting along side the other 2...
-
Anyone else tired of the comparisons (or more accurately, the slamming of MS)? Things have gotten so bad here at work that my boss now wanders around bad mouthing MS for things that have nothing to do with his problems. He seems to think that if he bad-mouths MS, then he must be technically sharp. Example - We were having troubles with our email system (MS Exchange) and immediately, the MS slams started flying about. As it turns out, the problem was in the firewall (running Linux) but not a word was said once that was found to be the culprit. Anyway, as I read more and more on the web - it seems that these Linux vs. Windows comparisons just cannot be avoided. Most of them are quite childish. I have a neutral opinion on it. I think MS does a great job of providing a fairly easy to use OS for the majority of PC users. I also think that Linux is a great OS for developers and technically proficient users. The thing is, these harcore Linux people seem to think that everyone (including my retired parents who barely know how to operate a mouse) would be better off using Linux. To sum it up - I just think that people are comparing apples to oranges (not the Apple of Apple computers, of course). Each time I read one of these "Linux rules, MS sucks" comments, it plants a very negative seed in my mind in relation to Linux. As a developer, I want to remain neutral but I can't help but feel turned off by all of this crap.
lynchspawn wrote: Each time I read one of these "Linux rules, MS sucks" comments, it plants a very negative seed in my mind in relation to Linux. As a developer, I want to remain neutral but I can't help but feel turned off by all of this crap. Well at least the Linux-using Windows slammers are mainly slamming Windows because of the attitude of the people who made it, not the because of the attitude of the people who use. Steve T
-
Anyone else tired of the comparisons (or more accurately, the slamming of MS)? Things have gotten so bad here at work that my boss now wanders around bad mouthing MS for things that have nothing to do with his problems. He seems to think that if he bad-mouths MS, then he must be technically sharp. Example - We were having troubles with our email system (MS Exchange) and immediately, the MS slams started flying about. As it turns out, the problem was in the firewall (running Linux) but not a word was said once that was found to be the culprit. Anyway, as I read more and more on the web - it seems that these Linux vs. Windows comparisons just cannot be avoided. Most of them are quite childish. I have a neutral opinion on it. I think MS does a great job of providing a fairly easy to use OS for the majority of PC users. I also think that Linux is a great OS for developers and technically proficient users. The thing is, these harcore Linux people seem to think that everyone (including my retired parents who barely know how to operate a mouse) would be better off using Linux. To sum it up - I just think that people are comparing apples to oranges (not the Apple of Apple computers, of course). Each time I read one of these "Linux rules, MS sucks" comments, it plants a very negative seed in my mind in relation to Linux. As a developer, I want to remain neutral but I can't help but feel turned off by all of this crap.
lynchspawn wrote: I just think that people are comparing apples to oranges or operating systems and *text processors* David Never forget: "Stay kul and happy" (I.A.)
David's thoughts / dnhsoftware.org / MyHTMLTidy -
Anyone else tired of the comparisons (or more accurately, the slamming of MS)? Things have gotten so bad here at work that my boss now wanders around bad mouthing MS for things that have nothing to do with his problems. He seems to think that if he bad-mouths MS, then he must be technically sharp. Example - We were having troubles with our email system (MS Exchange) and immediately, the MS slams started flying about. As it turns out, the problem was in the firewall (running Linux) but not a word was said once that was found to be the culprit. Anyway, as I read more and more on the web - it seems that these Linux vs. Windows comparisons just cannot be avoided. Most of them are quite childish. I have a neutral opinion on it. I think MS does a great job of providing a fairly easy to use OS for the majority of PC users. I also think that Linux is a great OS for developers and technically proficient users. The thing is, these harcore Linux people seem to think that everyone (including my retired parents who barely know how to operate a mouse) would be better off using Linux. To sum it up - I just think that people are comparing apples to oranges (not the Apple of Apple computers, of course). Each time I read one of these "Linux rules, MS sucks" comments, it plants a very negative seed in my mind in relation to Linux. As a developer, I want to remain neutral but I can't help but feel turned off by all of this crap.
lynchspawn wrote: To sum it up - I just think that people are comparing apples to oranges (not the Apple of Apple computers, of course). Each time I read one of these "Linux rules, MS sucks" comments, it plants a very negative seed in my mind in relation to Linux. As a developer, I want to remain neutral but I can't help but feel turned off by all of this crap. Many are comparing Apples to Oranges, and sometimes to Kiwi, and Guava too. I have both OS's, though I waited on Linux until I could find a distribution that was one-step auto-install, everything worked. That was a long time coming. Now that there are a couple of distributions that are really good one-step installs, I can finally see it being used by anyone. I installed Mepis error free on a modern AMD-64, no problems, has "an office suite", even palm-sync software and iPod software, camera, etc. It even had the drivers for my printer, which even Windows XP did not have. But that does not make it suddenly better. However the excuse of bugs, security, and virus/spyware/scumware/etc is where the comparison is invalid. We find security holes in Windows because it is the larger distribution, Open Source doesn't have any advantages over corporate structure there. Both can employ smarter people to help find security holes/bugs that were missed by developers. Viruses are usually written by people who want to make a name for themselves, "hey I crashed the National Institute for the Blind" "oh yeah, well I crashed the FAA" etc. Therefore virus writers tend to go for the larger target, that is MS right now. If you closed MS offices tomorrow and replaced every computer with Linux or Apple based, or even full Unix, the target only changes. They would simply target the next top one. Spyware/scumware type software packages are aimed at information sources, again target audience is better if it is the largest OS distribution rather than a smaller. It doesn't matter what the OS is, the target will simply shift. So the argument ultimately comes down to "value" which although some people can argue that there is a one-size fits all evaluation of "value" it is a completely personal evaluation. Windows has a benefite of history, a very large set of software that runs on it, current through past. This is benefit and detriment since that compatibility also holds it back in technology. Apple has had at least two "drop and replace" type upgrades where the only way to run old software was through emulation. But in the end it comes down to, "c
-
Anyone else tired of the comparisons (or more accurately, the slamming of MS)? Things have gotten so bad here at work that my boss now wanders around bad mouthing MS for things that have nothing to do with his problems. He seems to think that if he bad-mouths MS, then he must be technically sharp. Example - We were having troubles with our email system (MS Exchange) and immediately, the MS slams started flying about. As it turns out, the problem was in the firewall (running Linux) but not a word was said once that was found to be the culprit. Anyway, as I read more and more on the web - it seems that these Linux vs. Windows comparisons just cannot be avoided. Most of them are quite childish. I have a neutral opinion on it. I think MS does a great job of providing a fairly easy to use OS for the majority of PC users. I also think that Linux is a great OS for developers and technically proficient users. The thing is, these harcore Linux people seem to think that everyone (including my retired parents who barely know how to operate a mouse) would be better off using Linux. To sum it up - I just think that people are comparing apples to oranges (not the Apple of Apple computers, of course). Each time I read one of these "Linux rules, MS sucks" comments, it plants a very negative seed in my mind in relation to Linux. As a developer, I want to remain neutral but I can't help but feel turned off by all of this crap.
Amen. It's trendy to bash "Micro$oft" because they're a big, easy target: lots of money, very powerful, the defacto OS that the general population uses. Computers get viruses! Computers crash! There are technological problems with all kinds of technology! Let's blame it all on M$, yeah! :doh: What's worse, on the popular tech sites like Slashdot, Kuro5hin, et al, people will mod down and/or flame you if you say anything negative about Linux, or anything positive about Microsoft. That's just plain prejudice. Talk about closed-mindedness, it's really sad. See my article[^] on Virtual Karma[^] about this very thing.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: The Secular Left, the Religious Right, and Prejudice Judah Himango
-
Anyone else tired of the comparisons (or more accurately, the slamming of MS)? Things have gotten so bad here at work that my boss now wanders around bad mouthing MS for things that have nothing to do with his problems. He seems to think that if he bad-mouths MS, then he must be technically sharp. Example - We were having troubles with our email system (MS Exchange) and immediately, the MS slams started flying about. As it turns out, the problem was in the firewall (running Linux) but not a word was said once that was found to be the culprit. Anyway, as I read more and more on the web - it seems that these Linux vs. Windows comparisons just cannot be avoided. Most of them are quite childish. I have a neutral opinion on it. I think MS does a great job of providing a fairly easy to use OS for the majority of PC users. I also think that Linux is a great OS for developers and technically proficient users. The thing is, these harcore Linux people seem to think that everyone (including my retired parents who barely know how to operate a mouse) would be better off using Linux. To sum it up - I just think that people are comparing apples to oranges (not the Apple of Apple computers, of course). Each time I read one of these "Linux rules, MS sucks" comments, it plants a very negative seed in my mind in relation to Linux. As a developer, I want to remain neutral but I can't help but feel turned off by all of this crap.
Every few years I pick up a copy of Linux just to see what's going on and every few years I decide I'll wait until they've got it working properly and have some decent programs for it before I spend time actually trying to use it. pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "They say there are strangers who threaten us, In our immigrants and infidels. They say there is strangeness too dangerous In our theaters and bookstore shelves. That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves." Rush
-
Anyone else tired of the comparisons (or more accurately, the slamming of MS)? Things have gotten so bad here at work that my boss now wanders around bad mouthing MS for things that have nothing to do with his problems. He seems to think that if he bad-mouths MS, then he must be technically sharp. Example - We were having troubles with our email system (MS Exchange) and immediately, the MS slams started flying about. As it turns out, the problem was in the firewall (running Linux) but not a word was said once that was found to be the culprit. Anyway, as I read more and more on the web - it seems that these Linux vs. Windows comparisons just cannot be avoided. Most of them are quite childish. I have a neutral opinion on it. I think MS does a great job of providing a fairly easy to use OS for the majority of PC users. I also think that Linux is a great OS for developers and technically proficient users. The thing is, these harcore Linux people seem to think that everyone (including my retired parents who barely know how to operate a mouse) would be better off using Linux. To sum it up - I just think that people are comparing apples to oranges (not the Apple of Apple computers, of course). Each time I read one of these "Linux rules, MS sucks" comments, it plants a very negative seed in my mind in relation to Linux. As a developer, I want to remain neutral but I can't help but feel turned off by all of this crap.
I am tired of the totally stupid point-counterpoint arguments yes. I am also tired of the FUD put out on both sides. Linux is a totally awesome OS if you need to do Linux type things (run a high-performance server without buying a Cray XMP to do it on, etc) and Windows XP is totally awesome at being a desktop OS that my mom can use. Personally I use Linux most of my time unless I'm coding Windows apps just because I prefer it. If someone else prefers Windows then great. I'm not going to burn their house down or lose any sleep. One thing I do think is a very good side effect of Linux getting more user-friendly and therefore more widely adopted is that it's giving MS a healthy boot up the backside to get innovating again. They have tended to be more like the IBM of old lately IMHO. It is also extremely good that poorer countries can have cheap hardware running fully featured OS's without paying ridiculous amounts of $ to do so (half-assed Windows stripped down editions not withstanding) :)
-
lynchspawn wrote: To sum it up - I just think that people are comparing apples to oranges (not the Apple of Apple computers, of course). Each time I read one of these "Linux rules, MS sucks" comments, it plants a very negative seed in my mind in relation to Linux. As a developer, I want to remain neutral but I can't help but feel turned off by all of this crap. Many are comparing Apples to Oranges, and sometimes to Kiwi, and Guava too. I have both OS's, though I waited on Linux until I could find a distribution that was one-step auto-install, everything worked. That was a long time coming. Now that there are a couple of distributions that are really good one-step installs, I can finally see it being used by anyone. I installed Mepis error free on a modern AMD-64, no problems, has "an office suite", even palm-sync software and iPod software, camera, etc. It even had the drivers for my printer, which even Windows XP did not have. But that does not make it suddenly better. However the excuse of bugs, security, and virus/spyware/scumware/etc is where the comparison is invalid. We find security holes in Windows because it is the larger distribution, Open Source doesn't have any advantages over corporate structure there. Both can employ smarter people to help find security holes/bugs that were missed by developers. Viruses are usually written by people who want to make a name for themselves, "hey I crashed the National Institute for the Blind" "oh yeah, well I crashed the FAA" etc. Therefore virus writers tend to go for the larger target, that is MS right now. If you closed MS offices tomorrow and replaced every computer with Linux or Apple based, or even full Unix, the target only changes. They would simply target the next top one. Spyware/scumware type software packages are aimed at information sources, again target audience is better if it is the largest OS distribution rather than a smaller. It doesn't matter what the OS is, the target will simply shift. So the argument ultimately comes down to "value" which although some people can argue that there is a one-size fits all evaluation of "value" it is a completely personal evaluation. Windows has a benefite of history, a very large set of software that runs on it, current through past. This is benefit and detriment since that compatibility also holds it back in technology. Apple has had at least two "drop and replace" type upgrades where the only way to run old software was through emulation. But in the end it comes down to, "c
I don't know if I agree with you 100% here. The open bit of open source makes viruses harder to propogate IMHO. Anybody can grab the source code and build the app themselves. If there is malicious code I doubt it could survive for long. And since no two version of Linux are exactly alike it's very difficult to write the kind of attacks that hit Windows all the time. I tend to think open source is inherently more secure as a general rule.
-
I don't know if I agree with you 100% here. The open bit of open source makes viruses harder to propogate IMHO. Anybody can grab the source code and build the app themselves. If there is malicious code I doubt it could survive for long. And since no two version of Linux are exactly alike it's very difficult to write the kind of attacks that hit Windows all the time. I tend to think open source is inherently more secure as a general rule.
But that assumes malicious code is the cause inside the OS. No offense to all the developers here, but developers make mistakes. We are too close to the problem. We, as developers, can block every possible problem we can imagine.... But the problem is the ones we cannot imagine. There is always someone who thinks differently than us who finds something we did not. Open source does not have any advantages there. And as for Linux, it also does not have an advantage in core design since the kernel code are based on the same designs and similar capabilities and support and shared kernels mean shared problems. Linux has had its flaws too, for the exact same reason as Windows: something gets overlooked. You can have different firewalls on Linux, different software on Linux, well the same can be said of Windows. So again tie. Open source has the quality that anyone can review the materials, anyone can submit a flaw found (and even a fix if you have the talent), but it still goes through an approval process before inclusion in the core. Windows has a similar approval process, again tie. However, one has a partial advantage.... Open Source relies on volunteers for a lot, though corporate sponsorship is growing (which is to Linux's benefit), Corporate world can hire the brightest (if they choose to do so) -- Linux runs off of a lot of people's free time. That makes Linux a wild-card, possibly better, possibly worse depending on who has time to volunteer. I do have a problem in that Microsoft did ignore bugs in design in favor of widening its software base to destroy competition in other areas. Fix the core first, then expand. But that has nothing to do with Open Source or Corporate dealings per se. Linux has some core groups building large software products that get wide distribution, reducing the variety, increasing the stability, but also increasing the target for problems in code. KDE has a large suite that Mepis installs by default to handle most of its device connections. If everyone used KDE mail and there was a problem with the length of the header overwriting space and setting security variables such that code could be inserted... then all KDE users would be in danger. As KDE group grows in popularity and spreads to multiple distributions, more people would be endangered. They all have the same dangers. Instead of using outlook express, you could use pegasus mail, mozilla, or others. The problem is people will go with what is convenient. So if KDE becomes that convenience in Linux, so comes the exact
-
Anyone else tired of the comparisons (or more accurately, the slamming of MS)? Things have gotten so bad here at work that my boss now wanders around bad mouthing MS for things that have nothing to do with his problems. He seems to think that if he bad-mouths MS, then he must be technically sharp. Example - We were having troubles with our email system (MS Exchange) and immediately, the MS slams started flying about. As it turns out, the problem was in the firewall (running Linux) but not a word was said once that was found to be the culprit. Anyway, as I read more and more on the web - it seems that these Linux vs. Windows comparisons just cannot be avoided. Most of them are quite childish. I have a neutral opinion on it. I think MS does a great job of providing a fairly easy to use OS for the majority of PC users. I also think that Linux is a great OS for developers and technically proficient users. The thing is, these harcore Linux people seem to think that everyone (including my retired parents who barely know how to operate a mouse) would be better off using Linux. To sum it up - I just think that people are comparing apples to oranges (not the Apple of Apple computers, of course). Each time I read one of these "Linux rules, MS sucks" comments, it plants a very negative seed in my mind in relation to Linux. As a developer, I want to remain neutral but I can't help but feel turned off by all of this crap.
lynchspawn wrote: Each time I read one of these "Linux rules, MS sucks" comments, it plants a very negative seed in my mind in relation to Linux. As a developer, I want to remain neutral but I can't help but feel turned off by all of this crap. Couldn't have said it better myself. -------------------------------
-
Anyone else tired of the comparisons (or more accurately, the slamming of MS)? Things have gotten so bad here at work that my boss now wanders around bad mouthing MS for things that have nothing to do with his problems. He seems to think that if he bad-mouths MS, then he must be technically sharp. Example - We were having troubles with our email system (MS Exchange) and immediately, the MS slams started flying about. As it turns out, the problem was in the firewall (running Linux) but not a word was said once that was found to be the culprit. Anyway, as I read more and more on the web - it seems that these Linux vs. Windows comparisons just cannot be avoided. Most of them are quite childish. I have a neutral opinion on it. I think MS does a great job of providing a fairly easy to use OS for the majority of PC users. I also think that Linux is a great OS for developers and technically proficient users. The thing is, these harcore Linux people seem to think that everyone (including my retired parents who barely know how to operate a mouse) would be better off using Linux. To sum it up - I just think that people are comparing apples to oranges (not the Apple of Apple computers, of course). Each time I read one of these "Linux rules, MS sucks" comments, it plants a very negative seed in my mind in relation to Linux. As a developer, I want to remain neutral but I can't help but feel turned off by all of this crap.
Well I don't blame MS for the crashes in my PC. I think they have done a great work in making PC easy to operate for common man. They were the best, and best always get preference, no matter what other says. Like now I am using firefox becuase I like it plugins, there is a plugin for almost everything you want with firefox. I think linux is catching up, and general people supports it now apart from the Phd researchers. http://www.priyank.in/