Linux v/s Windows

[hwang]

Which is the best for you??
I only tried Windows, I don't know how Linux works.
I would like to know which of both is the best to use??

Tell me your opinion

[a1whs.com]

Linux would crash less than XP . Linux doesnt have as good GUI as XP. Linux is little more virus proof than XP. Decide now your self which suites you better.

[Rus]

Linux would crash less than XP . Linux doesnt have as good GUI as XP. Linux is little more virus proof than XP. Decide now your self which suites you better.

Last time my linux crashed was few weeks ago, and first time in more than 6 months. Windows crashed few times today.

Which GUI you used? You can make linux GUI to look any way you like, so it makes it better in my book. I use http://www.kde.org/ which I modified to look like I want it.

Linux has a total of around 144 viruses in all of its history(they could only delete user directory, not destroy the sistem), while win has more than 100 000 viruses.

There are many distributions of linux out there, you just have to find one you like.

[Bryce W]

I think Linux is great for most things except for a 'adverage user, day to day' operating system' like XP is.

I use Linux for my servers, I use linux for my firewall and I use linux for a few other misc tasks and I love it but unless they work on user friendliness it'll never catch up to Microsoft in the everyday OS market.

For example, last year I brought a new laptop and installed both Linux Mandrake and XP so I could dual boot. I started setting up KDE to the interface I liked and installed various programs I use such as Firefox, aMSN etc..
But when it came to my wireless drivers it wasnt fun, my wireless card is the standard one that comes with all Centrinos which is either the intel 2100 or 2200, mine was the 2200.

It seems there is no offical support for the 2200, so I search around for unofficial and it seemed that there was drivers available. After reading many manuals and walkthroughs on getting this working (configing, compiling etc..) I could finally connect to my AP, however I couldnt get it to work with WEP switched on, so I went back to the sites documentation/forums and they said that WEP isnt supported.

I never used wireless in Linux after that, I know I could use MAC address filtering from my AP however I also want my packets encrypted too. All in all it took about 3-4 hours to get to this stage after searching, configing, installing, compiling and reading documentation. XP reconginses my inbuilt wireless the second it boots up for the first time.

I know this is probably the manufacturers fault that they didnt design it to operate in linux but the adverage user just wants things to work, they want computers to make their lives easier, not harder. A linux-y friend of mine says "thats the great part about linux, it makes people LEARN", however the average person doesnt want to learn, in their minds their lives are already complicated enough and if they can find a product that makes things easier for them, they'll use it, thats what technology is all about, making things easier.

And as soon as Linux starts getting more 'average person' friendly I'll start recommending it to clients, but its just so flawed on the user friendlyness for the average user field that I cant yet.

[kamesh]

I dont know much about the Linux....However, can speak a few words on Compatibility comparisn...

LInux issues are compatible with earlier drivers and hardware. Windows drivers are valid ONLY for that specific OS and much software is not compatible between OSs. Reason, Windows wants to enforce system upgrades to get more money while Linux is aimed at longer usable life spans.

[kamesh]

There are a few block and character devices available on Linux that will also help you with security. However, am not sure if there is any kind of security involved with windows operating system.....

To give you a better picture, read the information provided below....

The two devices /dev/random and /dev/urandom are provided by the kernel to provide random data at any time.

Both /dev/random and /dev/urandom should be secure enough to use in generating PGP keys, ssh challenges, and other applications where secure random numbers are required. Attackers should be unable to predict the next number given any initial sequence of numbers from these sources. There has been a lot of effort put in to ensuring that the numbers you get from these sources are random in every sense of the word.

The only difference between the two devices, is that /dev/random runs out of random bytes and it makes you wait for more to be accumulated. Note that on some systems, it can block for a long time waiting for new user-generated entropy to be entered into the system. So you have to use care before using /dev/random. (Perhaps the best thing to do is to use it when you're generating sensitive keying information, and you tell the user to pound on the keyboard repeatedly until you print out "OK, enough".)

/dev/random is high quality entropy, generated from measuring the inter-interrupt times etc. It blocks until enough bits of random data are available.

/dev/urandom is similar, but when the store of entropy is running low, it'll return a cryptographically strong hash of what there is. This isn't as secure, but it's enough for most applications.

[Sleepy-uk]

my windows xp rarely crashes, I am trying to get mandrake installed on a partition so I can be able to use a Linux System.

[JasonSCSN]

I just joined so this is my first post :p

I for one am doing a paper on Linux Vs Windows at the college I attend (Tech School Actually)

I believe the following to be true:

Linux is best for Development, a Business oriented environment, servers, basic web browsing and E-Mail and more...

Windows is best for gaming, playing around with applications, and more (Below)

In depth, I personally use Linux as my development OS where I do "Work", run SSH, FTP, and a Web Server and the OS I use to learn stuff with. Windows I would use when I want to do a basic task like either gaming, run an application that doesn't work with Linux like Dreamweaver, Flash Etc.

Now, Linux in my opinion is only for people who are computer techs and love learning this stuff OR the basic browsing, EMail and such because that is easy to learn if thats all you use it for.

The reason why people choose Windows I believe is that when they want to download an application, they want it to work ASAP and not worry about compiling it, making it, etc. Linux is for the people that want to learn about all that. Programmers would probably choose Linux over windows.

I personally have COMPLETELY switched to Linux as my main Desktop on all of my PCs just for a few reasons that are:

-I did not have to reboot my machine for like a week. Windows you have to for either: updates, software etc.

-You install Linux and all of your tools for development are RIGHT THERE. No need to download anything unless you require special tools. Windows, comes with no software but your basic Works.

-I love linux for the fact that, I can go to a site that is known for spyware and on Linux, you don't get ANY. With Windows, those same sites make me turn up my IE security then turn it back down when I am done.

-Linux configuration files are all right there waiting to be modified. Windows "Hides" them.

-Linux logs are right there logging every single thing you do. Windows "Hides" there logs.

-Security, as mentioned before Linux has just over a 150 or so known viruses. Windows gets 1000 new viruses everyday (Or so it seems).

-When you turn on your Linux system, theres not one application that pops up. I cant stand to turn on my Windows System and 20 applications pop up. Yeah you set them to not pop up, but why bother when Linux has nothing pop up.

-Windows, does have one positive. Wireless, it can sometimes be a real pain to set up wireless internet on Linux(Trust me, Ive been at it for a week or two) And obviously the part about applications being downloaded, you dont have to compile/make them, just run them. But heck, RPMs are easier to install than EXE's. EXE's ask for all this information. You just click the RPM's and its installed just like that, no user interaction neccessary. Its only tough when there are no RPMs available for the application you want.

I think thats enough for now, or all I can think of. If I am wrong about anything, make sure to correct me as I have only been using Linux ALOT for the past month or so.

[tkrabec]

Linux boxes are great. But you do need to know a bit to get the setup and working properly, but the upside is, they will normally continue to do that job until the hardware dies. I just replaced a 4 year old Linux install running off a retired PC, The system was the only mail server (IMAP, virus scanning, spamassassin) for a 50 person office, until just last night (3/14/07). I replaced that machine with a retired Database server ( much much better specs) I expect this install to run for at least 4 years, unless the hardware dies(the server is already 4 years old, in a hot environment)

-- Tim Krabec

[Holzster]

As Linux user the main reason I use Linux is Safety, Customization, & Cost!!
Here is what I did - I started by duel booting. I went into Linux EVERY DAY & learned just 1 thing a day. after 4-5 months I found I was in Linux more than Windows. So I installed Windows in a virtual Machine (VirtualBOX).
I did start going to a local LUG (Linux User Group) that was FREE training!!. Below is some links I found that might be useful in learning Linux.

beginlinux.com/
Linux.org
linux.com
free-itebooks.com
linuxsurvival.com
howtoforge.com
ubuntuforums.org

Hope this helps

Holzster

[gunslinger]

Its my opinion that Linux is only good for 3 types of users: the kid 5-10 years old that will never install programs, and only need to use the internet and maybe email, listen to music and burn CD's. The older person that has the same basic needs and does not want to have to mess with anything. The super geek that likes to challenge himself. For everyone else there is windows.

[The Goatboy]

With the little extra time I have after work, I did try to install SuSE 10 on an older laptop. I had it working for a few days then someone recommended Ubuntu; I tried installing it several times with no success. I'm guessing SuSE 10 is a heavier install than Ubuntu, but I never did figure out why it wouldn't work. Just to make sure my HDD wasn't on it's way out I tried to reinstall SuSE 10 and it worked flawlessly.

I used to be a Unix/Linux admin in a former IT life, but have since switched to the darkside. My MS responsibilities for work require I spend most of my time learning MS products and anything that rides on top. While I'd love to show Linux more love, I'm just not finding the time to do so. Maybe on my 3rd of 9 lives I'll have more time to play with it again.

[Vitiated]

I think Linux is great for most things except for a 'adverage user, day to day' operating system' like XP is.

Its my opinion that Linux is only good for 3 types of users: the kid 5-10 years old that will never install programs, and only need to use the internet and maybe email, listen to music and burn CD's. The older person that has the same basic needs and does not want to have to mess with anything. The super geek that likes to challenge himself. For everyone else there is windows.

You guys should look into Ubuntu, you may be pleasantly surprised. I am the first to admit that it is not "there" yet, but it's close. My main gripes, like you Knuckles, is wireless and I'd add to that printer compatibility. Once a couple of these issues are ironed out, it could become viable Windows alternative.

[gunslinger]

Been playing with Ubuntu for almost a year now and have not been impressed. Its ok for what it is but at this rate its not going to replace windows anytime soon.

[rnojonson]

Its like comparing a pre-built model car to a pile of plastic parts and pictures of what you could build. It is a good thing some have gone before to put together kits so we don't have to start from scratch. If we approach Linux as a system admin or a programmer would we will never sell Linux to grandma. While knowing Bash, working the terminal or using Vi or Emacs makes you a powerful Jedi, but it is not necessary to have extensive knowledge of them to use Linux. The average computer user can navigate Linux with point, click, drag, drop, cut and paste on any of the desktops and window managers. This has been true for years now. I have used the command line on occasion to tweak the system or load some software but the GUI is the equalizer for the average user. Look and feel have always been subjective values, it's about what you are use to. Linux can be adjusted to fit the hardware and adjusted to fit the user, even grandma. If Linux were pre-installed these thing would be even more true. The GUI makes Linux the same as other operating systems for a typical computer user. My opinion is that Linux is way more powerful, configurable, stable and efficient than MS Windows. This is on top of being free and open source.
People should realize that Linux is not a drop in replacement for MS Windows, expecting to run Windows applications on Linux. While it can be done, it is not the best solution, virtual machines and emulators do seem to do well in Linux. The biggest excuse for not using Linux has been from gamers who are stuck on MS Windows games. They say Linux has no games, which is not true. But they want popular Windows games to run on Linux. I can not help you, I am not a gamer, just a typical computer user convinced that Linux is very cool. To all you would be Linux users who are expecting Linux to be a better Windows, you will be disappointed. The point is that Linux is different than MS Windows from its source, yet its outcome on the desktop is the same, anybody can use it. I think it totally amazing what you can get for free.

[gunslinger]

"To all you would be Linux users who are expecting Linux to be a better Windows, you will be disappointed"

Yup, if you want a better Windows or what Vista was supposed to be, try Mac OSX.

[mdshann]

If you want something better than Windows try Mac OSX???

OSX is based on a BSD kernel, which makes it more closely related to Linux than Windows. In fact it is so close that it runs the BASH shell and many BSD/UNIX/Linux commands can be run on it OUT OF THE BOX! Many Linux programs can be in fact compiled to run on OSX, so when you are saying try Mac OSX because it is better than windows you are saying try a Unix like OS. Linux is a close cousin to Unix. The main reason OSX works so well is the kernel it is based on, and the fact that there are only so many different hardware possibilities you can buy from Apple.


On to my second point. If you want to compar user friendliness, take 2 identical machines with some basic specs, say for example 2 P4s with wired ethernet adapters, nvidia graphics, same mobos, and new or wiped hard drives. Sit 1 person in front of each who has never done an OS install. Put a retail XP disc in one and an ubuntu disc in the other and start the install. Installation should go smoothly for each I would assume, as there really will be no need to do any partitioning besides what the OS installer says to do, etc. Now, once you have them up and running with clean installs and logged in tell them to get drivers for the machine. The windows user will have to install chipset, graphics, ethernet, sound, etc. Ubuntu guy? Graphics only, and with the help of the restricted drivers manager it takes 2 clicks! If the windows guy did not have all the manufacturer supplied discs he may need the ubuntu guy to download the ethernet drivers for him! This is the way it is for most linux installs, and the way it was on my laptop. Everything worked on first boot besides my wireless. The only drivers I installed were my nvidia 7150 M and my wireless.

The real user friendliness in Linux is that it has drivers built in for most any hardware you can think of, besides a select few devices such as wireless, printers, scanners, and video cards. For all of the thousands of hardware devices that are supported in Linux a vast majority of them are INCLUDED IN THE KERNEL. Plus Linux is written for more processor architectures than an other OS ever has been!

Sorry if I ramble... I'm no writer! :eek:

[gunslinger]

Two things: The first this is the OSX comparison to Windows and Linux. Its an OS, its going to be compared to both at some point. IMO Vista is a very unstable, badly done knock off of OSX. They tried to add some features like spotlight, um ...I mean " the new search". But it ended up very poorly done. Yes, I know OSX is Unix based and that makes it closer to Linux. I'm not talking about installing the OS with drivers. Most times thats done at the factory. I'm talking about the user experience. How long does it take a given person to figure out how to do something.

Second thing: I have to install Windows XP on maybe every third or forth system I get in the shop and I have only had to manually install two drivers in the past 6 months that I can recall. Even then it was pretty easy because I always back up the drivers before I reinstall.

[mdshann]

The reason I talked about installing the OS as part of user friendliness is becasue it always seems to be one of the things that people bring up the most in this age old debate. Yes some distros are difficult to install but those are usually the ones aimed at advanced users such as gentoo, slackware, or debian.

On the subject of "How lon does it take for a given person to figure out how to do something", I honestly wonder about what the result would be if you took 2 people who have never used a computer and put them in front of 2 systems that were preconfigured. How long would it take them to use the internet? Edit photos? Type a document? I think that the result would be pretty similar in the case of Linux vs Windows with someone who ad no exposure to either system. I've never tested this though so I can't be sure.

I just think that the idea of Linux as a viable replacement on the desktop for you average user would work just fine, as long as they weren't needing to do any system configuration or hardware changes. I think that software installation wise they are pretty similar, with Linux being easier to actually install the software and windows being easier to figure out what to install. (because of less choice)

Edit: Is there an application that you use to back up the drivers? I have always been curious if there was an easier way than having to search online as some manufacturers aren't the best when it comes to posting drivers. Such as HP where often times all they post are updates that require the original driver to be installed!

[gunslinger]

The tools that I have used to collect the drivers are double driver,driver magician, and driver collector. They all do the job, but the interface is a little different.

[mdshann]

Thanks for the info I will try them out!

[gunslinger]

No problem. Also, if you can get the portable versions of these all the better. Keeps from having to install yet another program on an already sick computer.

[rnojonson]

I am surprised so many think Linux is not ready for the desktop. Admins tend to think it's too complex for average users, techs say it will never take over MS, so why bother or if it was ready people would be using it. But basically if it were like MS Windows, it would be ready. Well that has been tried and the results are not that good. I got into the habit of using Linux everyday, it is just fine, to me. Today I dual-boot , but I am thinking to install XP in Virtualbox so I don't have to reboot just to use IE and Incredimail. If Linux was pre-installed or if someone helps you install it and all goes well, then using Linux is not a problem at all. I guess I have sold my MS villa for a Linuxville estate. Anyway I have realized that Linux does require some education because most folk have not experienced using it. There are a lot of brief encounter testimonies and failed attempt (Linux is crap) web postings. I don't think Linux is a must have kind of thing as Macs and MS are often marketed as. The object of desire thing does not fit Linux well. There are a lot of pluses and only a few minuses.

[gunslinger]

Although I don't think Linux is "crap", I also don't think it will be very popular anytime soon for a few reasons. The first is setting it up. Having used Fadora and Ubuntu Its just not as easy for me to set up as a windows box. Another reason is apps not working with it. You just cannot use certain apps with Linux. I know , I know there are Linux versions that are kinda sorta like the real thing. But they just aren’t the real thing. It seems like you have to do a terminal hack to get anything to work right. I don't want to spend half a day to get my wireless to work, I and most other users just want it to work. Another reason its not more popular is that most people use and have gotten use to Windows in one version or another. Going from windows to Linux is for me at least like going from an automatic to a 5 speed manual. While the manual has its perks the automatic just works and anyone can drive it. The more like Windows you can make Linux the more popular it will be with the masses, and the more unpopular it will be with true Linux geeks. Next is the compatibility issues. The main reason they exist with Linux is because you have an almost unlimited number of computer configurations and maybe 100 or so different version of Linux with many other subversions of each all trying to get along. Guess what? Its not going to work. The very things that make Linux what it is are also the things that will make certain its never main stream.

[rnojonson]

I am leaning toward agreeing with you on many points. I really don't think Linux will take over the desktop and in spite of what some fanboys think, the intent of Linux is that of a free OS that works on the PC. I think alternative OS rather than MS replacement is a play on words but probably more appropriate. I didn't have any problems with Linux as I am not a wireless person, I don't play many games or have a light dimming video card. The winmodem thing was a headache for me. In all I guess it is harder for MS Windows users to accept a little desktop diversity than for us to embrace foreign cars. Economics did play a big part in my switching and I am always looking for new ways to do what everybody else does. So, yes. Linux does not possess the formula for success. Weird though Mac has a glut of graphics and media software, MS Win a little of everything, Linux has lots of electronic design stuff and scientific apps, probably Unix ports. Maybe it is a good thing Linux is a "kit", just to be different and for those who want it. What I would like to hear is from Techs who have to support a Linux user base, what is that like?

[Crgky127]

Is there anyone geeky enough to use linux (or know a geek), but still need help from a tech? Do they pay for tech support on a free OS?

Another reason MS will have the market share for the foreseeable future is the vicious cycle around home computers and business networks. Businesses use MS because their employees use it at home, and they don't want to do extra training. For their home computers, people by MS because that's what they use at work (part of the reason why Norton is so popular).

[gunslinger]

Crgky127
You said a dirty word, you said Norton.

[rnojonson]

The Linux user = geeky thing is a bit like type casting or profiling if you will. There are such a wide assortment of Linux user personalities. Server guys and desktop mouse jockeys can be pretty different in knowledge and experience. But whether we wear a Tux suit or a Tux teeshirt or Tux lapel pin, Linux users can be a class act or a tough act. Does seem an awful lot of Linux users are do-it-yourselfers.

Paid support is a funny world, like extended car warranties. If I only have a few questions I believe the community can handle that. If I had company servers, network and user base to support I would want the backing of paid support.

The home/work user thing is strong but not impossible to deal with. Some are curious about Linux.

[rnojonson]

It's been a few months since my last post, here's an update. All is well in Linuxville, we are sporting Ubuntu 8.04 and have settled in to Gnome. Having a middle of the road HP desktop machine wired to the home network, I haven't had any wireless issues. I installed Virtualbox and as my first victim, XP Pro as a virtual machine OS. I have only 512MB memory so XP borrows half of it. Virtual machines are wonderful because dual-booting sucks when I need to access a gov MS IE certified web site. The Ubuntu vs XP or Vista debate goes on but XP and Vista require lots of tweaking and icon shortcuts to match the convenience of where things are placed in Ubuntu's Gnome desktop. Drilling for my files in XP forces me to use the search function or multiple menus. The same is done with a only few un-frustrating clicks in Gnome. Workflow is better for me in Ubuntu. As I don't have any commitment to MS software other than the OS itself and as I use open source software, Ubuntu Linux is meeting all of my computing needs except that gov web site thing. What I am realizing is perhaps some computer enthusiast who are the most vocal about the shortcomings of Linux are also the ones who fuss over hardware specs, buy the best of whatever there is, mix it all into their system and try to install Linux on it. Good luck with that.

[TechHelper]

I don't know. It's pretty close.