Linux vs. Windows

[Quiltface]

Wine doesn't work amazing all of the time. It is an option though.

and the statement about linux is for programmers is just wrong.

I think when you start talking like linux vs windows vs apple (and eventually) vs chrome

you have to realize what you want and need... hard to say which one is better or worse.
I love linux and windows...haven't used a mac since 1997-98 so i cant comment. but you shouldn't really compare them, it is like what is better a truck or a car...well depends on what you need.

 

[sunnysid3up]

Wine doesn't work amazing all of the time. It is an option though.

and the statement about linux is for programmers is just wrong.

I think when you start talking like linux vs windows vs apple (and eventually) vs chrome

you have to realize what you want and need... hard to say which one is better or worse.
I love linux and windows...haven't used a mac since 1997-98 so i cant comment. but you shouldn't really compare them, it is like what is better a truck or a car...well depends on what you need.

amen :good:

 

[tlarkin]

Linux is something you really just don't pick up and learn out of the box. It is an Operating System, and there are a lot of complex things going on in an OS. Most computer users grew up or first learned using Windows, which means they have the mindset that an OS should be like Windows. I think I first installed Linux in 1998 and it was slackware version 2.x. I took it off not long after because I didn't understand how it worked. I remember going to the command line and seeing BASH error out and me thinking, yeah I am going to bash this keyboard if it doesn't work.

Every OS is complicated when you get down to the underlying technologies. There is so much going on. The thing that makes Linux stand out is how modular it is by design. You have your Kernel, then your shell, then your choice of desktop environment and then you choice of packages. It doesn't have the bloat or tons of needed legacy code Windows has.

Linux can out of the box run Apache, PHP, Perl, Python, Ruby, and so forth. So perhaps it may be more ideal for a software developer to use such an OS, however, if you are developing for Windows you will need to work on a Windows box. Windows can run those libraries and command interpreters as well. In fact, many times I will launch the python interpreter instead of the calculator to do math. This is just because I am acclimated to using a computer that way.

To say that any OS is more compatible is also a moot point. Linux, OS X, and Windows all have a plethora of apps that do the same thing. The only difference is, sometimes certain apps are platform dependent. Say if you want to use Shake and Final Cut, you gotta do so on a Mac. Otherwise, there are similar apps for both Windows and Linux that do similar things.

 

[wolfeking]

Any downsides to a dual boot windows/linux OS? besides holding on to installation CDs?

With a large enough HDD, I see no problems at all. It will take up a lot of space from your windows partition (up to 20 GB using Wubi or as much as you install with the boot to disk install option.)
Just remember that when you save something under one OS, you will not be able to run it on the other OS (due to the HDD write style. Ubuntu doesn't like the NTFS language of the windows partition). Its a good idea to run the windows install first to avoid having issues with the boot manager.

 

[lubolat]

Are you building it for yourself or someone else? If its for another person, please go with Win7! Believe me, I installed an Ubuntu for a neighbor after they used XP and, man, lucky I live next door, because I must have been over at least 3-4 times to show how this works, etc. Eventually I put XP back.
But if it is for yourself, do a dual boot, install W7 first and then Ubuntu, maybe. Gives you more flexibility, variety and, if you get a virus on the Windows, you can access your files, pictures, etc., thru Ubuntu. And if you decide to uninstall the Linux OS, you'll have to fix your MBR, because Grub seems to hate it

 

[lucasbytegenius]

Are you building it for yourself or someone else? If its for another person, please go with Win7! Believe me, I installed an Ubuntu for a neighbor after they used XP and, man, lucky I live next door, because I must have been over at least 3-4 times to show how this works, etc. Eventually I put XP back.
But if it is for yourself, do a dual boot, install W7 first and then Ubuntu, maybe. Gives you more flexibility, variety and, if you get a virus on the Windows, you can access your files, pictures, etc., thru Ubuntu. And if you decide to uninstall the Linux OS, you'll have to fix your MBR, because Grub seems to hate it

GRUB does not hate your MBR, number one. Being a boot manager as it is, it has to install some code in the Master Boot Record. That's what boot managers do. Number two, I installed Ubuntu 10.10 on a 64 year old grandma's computer, and the only questions I got asked were how to put solitaire on it and how to browse files. After that, she got along quite well with it, hasn't had a question for me since, and in fact, when I offered to install Windows 7, she told me she wanted to keep Ubuntu. And she is one of those people who have trouble with computers in general. Your friend must have been stuck in the Windows mindset, and didn't want to learn. Many Linux distributions aren't hard to get used to, especially Ubuntu.

 

[Quiltface]

I like doudou linux.

 

[Quiltface]

harhar

 

[gamblingman]

Linux can out of the box run Apache, PHP, Perl, Python, Ruby, and so forth.

The bold are why I sometimes use linux instead of windows. I also got the fiancee interested in installing either ubuntu or linux mint on her machine. She isn't sure which one she wants at the moment. Though I'm trying to steer her toward ubuntu because it will be easier to learn. She tried mac's a few times and hated it.

I'd suggest most people try linux first, if they really don't like it, then switch to windows. Everyone already knows what windows can do, what it cant, its strengths and weaknesses so maybe try something different, eh?

 

[Quiltface]

The bold are why I sometimes use linux instead of windows. I also got the fiancee interested in installing either ubuntu or linux mint on her machine. She isn't sure which one she wants at the moment. Though I'm trying to steer her toward ubuntu because it will be easier to learn. She tried mac's a few times and hated it.

I'd suggest most people try linux first, if they really don't like it, then switch to windows. Everyone already knows what windows can do, what it cant, its strengths and weaknesses so maybe try something different, eh?

I have linux mint installed on my old laptop that my girl friend uses, i think it is easy enough its basically the same thing as ubuntu. Looks different, i use that over Ubuntu10.10 because of the performance. I use the mint LXDE version.

 

[LittleBarnFuh]

Get windows, it is definitely more compatible with things, and easier to find drivers in. for example my dad praised Linux and got it on his computer, but had to switch to windows because his internet wouldn't work for Linux. Also it is easier to find better software for windows. for example Microsoft office is better than Open Office despite what others say, also if something goes wrong with your computer and you have Linux, good luck, the little help you do find will be understandable by programmers only. I had Linux once and thought it was pretty cool, until two days later when I realized all I could do was look at it. It will definitely be worth the money to get Windows 7. Just get a good virus protector, like Avast, it works amazing and is free. Choose Wisely

 

[Quiltface]

What ISP did he have that it wouldn't work with linux? How long ago was this?

 

[tlarkin]

What ISP did he have that it wouldn't work with linux? How long ago was this?

Considering networking is standardized between all OSes, what he is claiming is just not true. Either the ISP has some sort of client software (that configures the network, or PPPoE) that only runs on Windows, which isn't needed because like I already stated; Networking is standardized.

Now take in the fact that the Internet runs off of Unix and Linux....I find that even harder to believe.

 

[Quiltface]

Considering networking is standardized between all OSes, what he is claiming is just not true. Either the ISP has some sort of client software (that configures the network, or PPPoE) that only runs on Windows, which isn't needed because like I already stated; Networking is standardized.

Now take in the fact that the Internet runs off of Unix and Linux....I find that even harder to believe.

yeah that's why i asked... i haven't seen the need of a pppoe client in a while, the modems all have that feature built in.

 

[zombine210]

i really tried to like linux, but it just plain sucks.

to whoever said supporting OSes for a years is a bad thing, i disagree. whenever i searched for help in linux, i had to make sure the fix applied to the current version i was using or it might not work.
in windows, you know everything is the same and what it can and cannot do. A fix that was found back in 2005 for XP will still work today! how cool is that? you can't do taht in linux! any version.

also, you have to make sure you have the exact same hardware as the guy giving you advice, or things might not work the way you expect!

and most of the help is given in commands. i mean, get with the times people! we have sweet GUIs that can do almost anything. linux is still trying to re-live it's geek days.

edit: also, freenas never liked my nics, it ran them at 3MB/sec even after hours of troubleshooting and command line configs. in windows i get at least 7MB/sec transfers to my file server out of the box.

 

[Quiltface]

don't you bad mouth the cli.

 

[tlarkin]

i really tried to like linux, but it just plain sucks.

to whoever said supporting OSes for a years is a bad thing, i disagree. whenever i searched for help in linux, i had to make sure the fix applied to the current version i was using or it might not work.
in windows, you know everything is the same and what it can and cannot do. A fix that was found back in 2005 for XP will still work today! how cool is that? you can't do taht in linux! any version.

also, you have to make sure you have the exact same hardware as the guy giving you advice, or things might not work the way you expect!

and most of the help is given in commands. i mean, get with the times people! we have sweet GUIs that can do almost anything. linux is still trying to re-live it's geek days.

edit: also, freenas never liked my nics, it ran them at 3MB/sec even after hours of troubleshooting and command line configs. in windows i get at least 7MB/sec transfers to my file server out of the box.

well, you have some good points. Obviously Linux isn't for everyone and Linux is developed by a community for nothing. Linus Torvald, the creator of the Linux kernel makes no money off of it. He gave it away for free. Almost all the problems you are describing are probably because of driver support. Companies do not release their source code to drivers so the open source community has to reverse engineer them. This of course will have it's flaws, since you maybe missing on some features of the hardware you have no idea how to code for.

If you buy supported hardware, that has actual Linux drivers, that really isn't much of a problem. Plus newest builds of Linux, like the new Ubuntu 10.10 come pretty much compatible out of the box.

The command line is essential, for many reasons, however in most cases whatever you do in the command line there is almost always a GUI option for it. There are, however, exceptions.

As for supporting legacy software, that is where your security holes and bloat comes from. Why is it, I can build a PC and load any OS on it besides Windows and that OS will boot faster, launch applications faster, and give overall performance faster? Those modern OSes cut the fat out of their code, and don't have tons of legacy support for your 7 year old software that was built off an older API which has known security holes or compatibility problems. There is ample reason to run updated software and not support software that is a decade old.

 

[MrWain]

i agree with "fatback" go windows dual boot linux or just blast it in a vmware or someting ^_^

 

[voyagerfan99]

i agree with "fatback" go windows dual boot linux or just blast it in a vmware or someting ^_^

Personally I find dual booting the best option. Doesn't restrict you when you have the option of two different OS'.

 

[MrWain]

Personally I find dual booting the best option. Doesn't restrict you when you have the option of two different OS'.

suppose you have a point the only reason i mention vmware etc is cause im to lazy when i decide i need linux so just use that xD overall would be better to dual boot the os =]