Windows vs. Linux

Great Debates
21

Any roughly standards compliant browser will properly display active server pages; they’re a server-side function, and generate web pages that are or aren’t IE specific.

Some distributions of Linux have caught up to Windows for ease of installation and general usability, but any user who isn’t a power user won’t see an advantage in Linux. What Linux has over Windows is all under the hood, and the largest proportion of users never notice or need the available performance advantage, since it’s not the kind of palpable advantage that a processor or RAM upgrades gives.

Never attribute to an -ism anything more easily explained by common, human stupidity.

22

Thank you all for the information provided. As you can tell, I’m just the average computer user. However, I do have one additional(slightly off-thread) query regarding Linux.

It seems to me that a lot of the ‘hot’ companies or startups are embracing Linux as the future. This is reflected by the stock market. Does anyone think that in a short time (6 mos - 1 yr), that Linux will be preferable to the average user, like myself, rather than the “power user”?

The most rewarding part was when I got my money!
-Dr. Nick Riviera

23

What I find interesting is that in every Windows versus Linux discussion, the Linux advocates start talking about forms of Unix other than Linux. If you’re wondering whether Linux or Windows is a better choice, then the virtues of AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, or one of the others are pretty irrelevant, especially since they don’t even run on PC hardware.

This sounds like someone who doesn’t really know what they’re doing; my NT, AIX, Sun, and HP servers only come down for hardware failures/changes, power outages, and patches/upgrades that require a reboot.

Of course, when not being careful with test code, I’ve seen people crash NT, Solaris, AIX, HP, and Linux fairly easily.

Linux’s stability is much talked about, but there doesn’t seem to be any empirical data showing Linux’s stability compared to NT, or 95/98 for that matter. Linux does have lower system requirements than NT, but NT performs significantly better on high-end machines, at least in all of the benchmarks that have been done.

IMO, while Linux is kind of neat, it’s stability and low resource requirements don’t seem to really exist in practice, and Linux has a much worse selection of software and hardware available, along with an inconsistant and rather poor user interface. Basically, unless you want a unix environment on your desktop, some flavor of Windows is a much better choice.

Kevin Allegood

24

Apple may end up being relevant to this discussion. The pretentiously named OS X (aka System 10) will not be OS 9 with bug fixes and extended features, but instead will be a variation on BSD Unix with the Macintosh OS GUI.

Ideally, at any rate. I’m among those who are hoping that they pull it off elegantly, but it is no mean trick to graft the look and feel of the MacOS onto something that is fundamentally different under the hood. If it is only skin deep, i.e., scratch the skin and you’re staring into Unix, …ick, no thanks, I don’t want to to stare at anything full of wheels and daemons on a command line!

For the sake of argument, though, if they deliver on the promises and OS X has a consistent Mac-type look and feel pretty much everywhere you go, but is really Unix, …

:slight_smile:

Designated Optional Signature at Bottom of Post

25

At the old office we currently only use NT for SQL servers, we have a total of 10 in my department. For what ever reason, a single one of them requires a reboot about once a month, the other 9 haven’t rebooted in over a year, except for installation of a new service pack. I’m sure Linux is very stable, but all the gripes about NT’s stability really seem to be about versions before SP3, or more recently SP6 (I think 6a fixed those problems). Myself I still am back on SP4, so I wouldn’t know. Really though, this topic seems to be more about consumer desktop software, which NT is not, and Linux is not.

26

Squee wrote:

No.

27

In repsonse to my complaints about the stabilty of NT vs. [insert of Unix here], Riboflavin said:

Sounds like you aren’t using your NT for much. Try running NT as a complete Internet server solution - If the thing is rebooted every few days, it starts crawling on it’s knees from all the memory leaks. NT’s native web solutions don’t come close to matching those of Unix that have been in use for years - atleast ever since Algore invented the internet :eek:

Now for File servers and Database servers, especially when using SQLServer, NT is a great solution.

But my main complaints about NT are about NT workstation. It was always touted as so much more stable than Windows 95 and 98 - absolutely not true. Sure it doesn’t completely lock up on you like 95 does, but that it Dr. Watson’s several times a day running standard software is not what I call stable.

Oh, and tracer, that wasn’t my quote about Linux’s ease of use - I always use the command line on our AIX boxes (that the company was too cheap to buy the X-Win add-on from IBM really shouldn’t weigh to the picture :wink: ).

28

Thats actually the big reason I’m using BeOS now. Well, it doesn’t have the Mac look and feel, and its not unix, but thats the general idea. Its got a slick GUI that makes mac and windows folks feel at home, and under the hood is some hard core modern OS technology (some of which was borrowed from UNIX).

I’ve heard some good things about OS X. I hope Apple can deliver this time. I believe it was in 96 or so when I tried a Copland beta…

29

The only software I’ve seen that Dr. Watson’s NT 4 Wks SP3 or better consistently is IE 4, and it seems to be tied to certain pages that use certain scripting techniques (but its intermittent even on those pages). IE 5 fixed this problem. What specific packages are you seeing this with?

My complaint about NT workstation is that it is slow and can’t play games worth a damn. I greatly prefer it for development and general office use however, as it almost never crashes completely.

30

The reason NT workstation is slow and that you can’t play the really cool games on it is the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer). This is the buffer the OS places between programs and device drivers. Windows 95/8 allows direct program access to the drivers, greatly increasing speed and flexibility, particularly for graphics programs. Of course, it also greatly increases system vulnerability to such joys as the blue screen of death. Since businesses value stability (and security, since direct access to drivers also represents a security hole) over game playing (for most employees; AVPs naturally excluded) wondows NT embraced HAL. Of course, since the 2 platforms are going to be merged (yeah, right) in W2K, that might change.

Of course, I’m a Unix geek personally, so I plan on simply sitting back and playing Xtetris while the Windows burn.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

31

Tracer said:

::sobbing::
I said that. I know I don’t post much, but I have a name, you know! Oh, well. I suppose I’ll get over it.

The mother of all wars has begun! The streets will flow with the blood of the non-believer!

I maintain that the Korn shell (or any command line interface) is next to useless for someone who doesn’t have a significant amount of time to spend learning it. It is for that reason that Linux needs major improvement before it will replace Windows on the desktop.

32

I agree. For that reason, mac-like interfaces will always dominate the market for word processors, game players and other diletantes. For those who prefer to learn how to use the tools at their disposal, superior operating systems have been around for 4 decades.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

33

Why do they call them ‘mac-like’ shouldn’t they be called ‘Englebart-like’ or ‘Alto-like’

GUI’s have been around in some primative form since 1968, or 32 years…

Peace.

† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13

34

Navigator said:

Probably cause Apple stole from Xerox, and everyone else then stole from Apple.

So nothing is like the Alto which isn’t also like the mac (well, ok, X isn’t stolen from apple, but everyting else is)

Careful what you say around the hard core linux folks… If I have to hear the “The GUI isn’t the Operating System” crap one more time… Aagh.

35

Huh? ASP is an application server that runs only on Windows servers (unless you count ChiliASP [http://www.chilisoft.com/]), but the output is pure HTML or whatever you want it to be. Internet Information Server, the web server that ASP runs under, supports the standard HTTP protocol, and works with any browser. I’ve developed dozens of ASP applications that run under IE and Netscape Navigator.

Can any other web developers back me up?

I’ve heard this claim before, and it surprises me every time I hear it.

PaulYeah

36

Lord Derfel has said a couple of times:

That all depends. If you’re used to DOS, then linux can be pretty confusing. If you’re used to unix, then it’s about as intuitive as they come. If you’re not used to a CLI at all, then they’re on fairly equal footing.
He also wrote:

Correction. Windows copies the GUI that rules the desktop… MacOS (OK last shameless plug). Seriously, if you’ve ever used a unix window manager or the MacOS, you wouldn’t feel that Windows is a particularly “good, intuitive GUI”. Also, why is everyone acting like linux doesn’t do windows? There are plenty of good window managers out there that offer as much or more than Windows™.

37

:smiley:

There is something about a GUI that requires something from the OS. The BeOS advocate could probably back me up on this. It speaks to the flexibility of Unix flavors that they can somewhat peacefully exist in both environments.

Anyone use the GUI that was part of OS/2 Warp. (hint: v 3 and above)???

† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13

38

Can anyone answer why, why, WHY no one has attempted to make a GUI OS that will run the same software as Windows 9x? I’m glad there are alternatives like Linux and BeOS, but why can’t they design them to run the same apps as Windows 9x, and give Microsoft some true competition?

39

JoeyBlades, you are correct when you say Windows is not a particularly good intuitive interface. I never said it was. I said that Linux needs a good intuitive interface in order to be a useful desktop OS. I have used MacOS, and several UNIX window managers. Perhaps I should have said that GUI’s rule the desktop. My fault, sorry.

You also said:

That proves my point about the command line interface being non intuitive. IMHO, If you need to “get used to” an OS, it is not intuitive. A new user shouldn’t be required to learn a long list of cryptic commands like ‘dir’, ‘ls’, ‘lpr’, or ‘vi’. I don’t think that a perfectly intuitive OS exists, but a GUI is a lot closer than a command line.

I agree that decent window managers exist for Linux, but I was specifically focusing on the command line. One can use MacOS, or even Windows without ever seeing a command line, but in Linux it is very difficult to avoid.

40

anyone want to fly off on the tangent of ‘vi’ vs. ‘emacs’ ???

† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13