why Linux is better than window
- Thread starter alohanema
- Start date
I disagree with your statistics and reasoning
I very, very rarely see "windows sucks" "windows is expensive" and those that do use that, as was mentioned earlier probably moved to Linux because they thought it was cool to do so.
I grew up with Workbench on the Amiga, then MS-DOS and Windows 3.1, then 95, 98, 98SE, XP Pro and I tried Vista Beta, before finally making my move to Linux in November of 2005.
I had problems with every single version of Windows apart from 3.1! You can't say it's my machine either because I use the same machine (that I used with XP) with Linux and don't have any problems at all.
I do agree with you on your last point and I've said it before myself in threads on this forum, if you aren't having any problems with Windows and you're happy then stick with it unless you want to learn how to use Linux.
TrojanFrost
New Member
I hope no flame will start !! Windows & Linux both great operating systems !!
patrickv
Active Member
i think linux is crap, always has , always will be
im pretty sure one day you will regret what you just said. Im pretty sure one day you will have to use linux as a server os. I never liked linux but after days/months of trying it out i ended up setting up the perfect desktop.
and today am happy.
you say its crap because im sure you can't even use it.
it would have been vice-versa if linux was windows and windows was linux. then we would say 'windows sucks'...but anyways to each his own opinion
psych0fish
New Member
Do you know why this is possible? Its because apple has 100% control over the hardware and software that ships on their computers. its not a fair comparison when comparing to windows because they have no control over the hardware or software. If windows had all that stuff built in people would scream bloody monopoly and shit a brick. Its a double standard man.
Now, I'm not discrediting how easy it is to do those things on a mac. I've used a mac. We have one here at work that we use for video production and before we started using Final Cut pro we were using iMovie. The program was very easy to use. burning dvds with iDvd was also easy. Though don't be fooled by apples advertising, iMovie crashed more often for us in a day than I've seen windows me crash in a day.
And as far as linux goes, don't expect to be able to do anything out of the box. At least not without first compiling some binaries and going through version dependency hell. eff that.
And Windows (XP Pro) is far more stable than linux zealots give it credible for. Pretty much anything that crashed the system completely can be attributes to poorly written drivers. I don't even know when the last time my xp machines crashed. Also most the time the security is compromised is because the computer was not behind a firewall or because of stupid ignorant user error. No i know an operating system shouldn't be brought to its knees quite so easily, but its true. Dumb users and crap drivers give windows a bad name.
Last edited:
tlarkin
VIP Member
Not to argue with you, and you have valid points. I hold both MS and Apple certs and work with both professionally. Yes apple is a closed platform, which means less third party support but more quality control like you said. Its a pay off. If MS made hardware they very well could do it but then again they are a software company for the most part.
Depending on what configuration you were using with iMovie could have caused the crashes. Don't get me started on stability because windows is the LEAST stable OS out there hands down. Mainly from poor coding and poor quality control because they have no control over what developers do, just like you mentioned. I am not saying Apple is all mighty, but since I support 10,000 computers at work with approx 7% mac population I work with them both every day. Every day and windows machine crashes, has a problem, has hardware failures. The Macs run pretty much with out any major issues at all, and with the occasional hardware failure. I know this because I do all the warranty work for HP, Gateway, and Apple at my work. So if anything hardware wise fails, I know about it. Also, we run HP Proliant servers, and Xserves. I have never once replaced anything besides a hard drive in an xserve in the past two years. I have had one processor and two system boards fail in our Proliant servers. I mean the results speak for themselves.
We just deployed 25 intel iMacs that dual boot OS X and Windows. This was our very first test run at deploying dual booting Macs with both OS X and windows. We used shell scripts and netboot to deploy the images. I can't even begin to tell you how surprised I was that it went ultra smooth. I mean typically nothing works first try in the IT world, but this did. The script partitioned the drive 80% for OS X 20% for win xp pro, loaded boot camp, wrote both images to the proper partitions, then rebooted into OS X. After that, I rebooted into windows and sysprep took care of the rest, named the imac with our naming convention script, etc etc. I mean nothing is suppose to work right the first time, at least in my experience nothing has with out tweaking. We did miss a few things in the images but that was no one's fault but ours. I will have to lock a few things down permission wise and recreate the image for next year, but for now I will push stuff out with scripts to change what I need to be changed. Earlier this week I pushed out a custom package installer I made for wacom tablets for the graphic designers to all the mac clients. I did it remotely with ARD, and it worked like a charm first time. It was my very first time making a custom package and pushing it out. It is amazing how this stuff just works out of the box.
The real fact is, people just do not know what they are talking about, and or perhaps scared to learn something new. The one area I will give lots of credit to MS is their server products. AD is very robust in what you can do, and exchange is well one of the better products out there. The only exception is I think SMS kind of sucks, but that may be my personal opinion. Their desktop OS has gone to crap with vista, I hate it, and it is going to be a support nightmare when we finally roll over to vista. You can totally integrate mac clients into an existing MS/AD/NDS/eDirectory environment. Most people do not take the time to learn how to do this, and a lot of people just say mac is crap, or linux is crap. That right there tells me they are ignorant by saying it is just crap.
If people actually took the time to learn the differences, learn the use, and learned the how to I don't think anyone would see either as being better or worse, they would just say they are different. Don't get me wrong, there are several things I hate about Apple, but as far as the OS goes, OS X is solid, powerful, robust, and can be a nice end user OS, or for the admin side - they can use the powerful robustness of the unix command line.
Also, as far as Linux goes. If you buy into the pay for distros, like Enterprise desktops, everything is precompiled and preinstalled for you. There are also tons of technologies in different distros that will automatically search the internet and download and install the application and all it's dependencies for you, so you no longer have to worry about things like that. Of course there are some times it does not run picture perfect, but then again what does? Just look into things like APT, rug, Yast, YUM, etc. All of those will take care of your dependencies, it really is not a big deal anymore.
Last edited:
psych0fish
New Member
Good post. I like linux, its just not for me.
How can you say windows is the least stable operating system out there.....have you seem to forgotten OS9? Which version of windows do you use Win98? Windows Xp is a very stable O.S.
I'm also in the business of user support and I've yet to see any problem with windows crashing that wasn't caused by a user not knowing what they were doing. It can be argued that a system shouldn't crashed so easily, but its the equivalent of people improperly servicing their cars and then having them break down. What happens when you fail to maintain the proper oil level in your car? It breaks. People need a tab bit more education before they should be allowed to use a computer.
As far as HP proliant severs, I haven't been impressed with them at all. But how is this microsofts fault? Its faulty logic to blame windows for hp's hardware failures. He had two hp proliant servers here, but one of them had the system board go out, as well as some major hard drive troubles. We replaced it with a dell poweredge server and have been very happy.
The whole unstable and unsecured argument against windows may have worked a few years ago, but not anymore. Unfortunately all the misinformation is still being spread, IE: Apple commercials.
Last edited:
tlarkin
VIP Member
Ever see a self propagating virus for windows that injects packets on the network totally killing pretty much all bandwidth? I have.
Ever see mass mail viruses for outlook that basically clog the hell out of your exchange server? I have.
Ever have a windows xp machine crash upgrading from SP1 to SP2 and totally hose the system? That happened a lot to me.
The comment about the proliant servers is a comparison in general between PC and Apple hardware. Obviously, Dell and HP do not design their hardware, they buy it from someone. Where as Apple actually designs it themselves, this again goes back to quality control. For the most part the HP proliant servers do run pretty solid, and I don't have anything negative to say about them other than they have had more hardware failures than the Xserves.
How windows XP is coded is what makes it sloppy. Allowing things like drivers to run as root level processes allow for hackers to write exploits. Making every user run at some admin level on the machine is also a huge sloppy coding problem. You also typically do not see any "script kiddies" writing exploitive scripts for Linux/Unix because of how the system is designed. In Unix/Linux OSes the kernel runs streamlined, and lets critical system processes run as root level, and everything else is just high level with out root access. There are of course many known ways to exploit a Unix machine. If you use BASH for example, simply changing the $PATH of commands allowing you to use sudo from a different directory will then give you root access to a machine. There are of course tons of precautions you can take to avoid this.
The security loop holes I find in windows alone kind of scare me, especially when working with a large network. There are still drive mapping exploits by creating short cuts that allow users to map drives that typically they are not suppose to have access to. Also since it is sloppy coding, it also allows developers to make sloppy coded programs. When applications demand that the user using it run as an admin account is sloppy and is already making the machine vulnerable to attack. Even limited users that authenticate at my work via NDS/eDirectory have to run as limited admins because a lot of applications we run on windows require that. I looks like Vista is finally trying to get rid of that by creating the \Users directory, and it looks like all user data, preferences, etc will be stored there instead of the old \Documents and Settings. This is exactly how Unix/Linux have their tree set up as well. I also mentioned before how MS just purchased tons of security technology from a Linux Company, Novell. Obviously they know they are insecure otherwise why would they be putting in all these new features in vista that do not really benefit the end user at all? They actually benefit the IT worker instead. Things like NAP, Encrypted file systems, stability manager, etc are designed to prevent Windows from crashing, and when it does crash you now how more information to figure out why.
I went to some vista training a few months back and it was led by a real MS employee. He even stated out loud to us that MS no longer cares and will come out and admit openly, yes we have problems. That is why they added all those tools to help the IT people lock down their network better. I am not trying to bash MS, because I think some of their products are good. I think vista is a steaming pile of crap. I mean come on, its been in development for 6 years and that is the best they can do? I think it is painfully obvious that MS knows their desktop OS is insecure and has flaws, they made it painfully obvious talking with the official MS rep and going through the training of all the new feature they added into vista. Most of the features are geared towards IT and not towards the end user, what does that tell you?
[trs]ALUMINUM
New Member
i dont get it. vista never crashed on me. vista his a awesome os only if you have the pc to actually run it
arisejesus
New Member
sometimes linux needs to be promoted as not many ppl know of any other OS other than OS X and windows. some people thinks that either windows or os x sucks but they dint know that there is other choices, they thought that they are bound to M$ or apple and have to use it for life.
patrickv
Active Member
let's sum this up, linux is NOT better than windows, Security wise it's better than windows, but OVERALL, windows kills it, at least in my opinion.
Liunx works for some people and don't work for others it just depends on your job or whatever you want linux to do, some things are possible some are not, we can't just go into the open and say it's better
Liunx works for some people and don't work for others it just depends on your job or whatever you want linux to do, some things are possible some are not, we can't just go into the open and say it's better
arisejesus
New Member
hey, why so fast u bring in the conclusion? windows may be better than linux but for some linux is better and windows sucks. both of this OS have its pros and cons so it depends on the user and the purpose
patrickv
Active Member
because this thread is really pointless and often get closed by mods due to many *insert word here* on OS's and member arguing with each other for nothing.
edit : du uh windows is better
lol What is better is a matter of opinion. My XP box is 'better' for playing HL2, but then by slack box is 'better' for a nice configurable dev box and safe net box, while the mandriva is 'better' in using the tv capture card and general ease of use and so forth... And for whatever reason people want to claim, the reality is that 'nix is safer on the net at the moment. I can surf safe.
One thing is for also for sure, if you want fresh then you want an open source os... I get a lot of apps via svn so they are fresh as they come, and the kernel is two days old on the slack box. You don't get that with CSS...
But I still run win boxes as they are better for some things. Games mostly, but even then prefer some games on linux for stability reasons.