Linux or Windows

you'll never have to pay for Ubuntu (Mark Shuttleworth has said that lots of times), i don't know about other distros, but if you look at something like Redhat (which you have to pay for) you can just use CentOS instead which is the same thing but maintained by the community instead of the company.

as far as a businessman, Linux will always be cheaper and AFAIK more reliable. i can only think of one reason to use Windows if you are a business and that's for compatibility reasons.

 

the money making model for Free Software is almost always through support, not selling the product.

 

Hmmmm, that reports not only problems in the kernel, but in applications like thunderbird, firefox, etc. which some aren't even installed by default. You cannot compare security issues between OS's based on only issues of the OS(windows) vs. issues of the OS and all the thousands of software (*nix). In addition, there are hundreds of linux distros which change their "version" of linux each creating there own security problems. In addition, linux's code is very heavily being reviewed since it is open-source. Thus bugs are found more quickly, and often patched very quickly. On the other hand, windows has bugs which may be kept secret, have cheap workarounds, and are often patched slowly. Thus through opensource a clear advantage is help

Many users have windows on their computer for many reasons. Some need it for certain apps required for their profession (aka photoshop, dreamweaver,etc.). Others like to play games which are designed for windows xp since it has a the overwhelmingly majority of the OS usage in the world.

In response to being the chief IT "go to", I would definately without a doubt recommend the switch to *nix (probably BSD). I could completely lock down the computers and ensure the hardware would work since I am installing them on predefined pcs. Also, I would not allow the users into the wheel group, so they couldn't mess up the pcs. Then I would install of the software needed, and not allow anything else. Remember, the pcs are for work, not play, and I don't want anybody messing up the pcs and needing to call tech support. *nix OSs simply work. For administration, I always can ssh into the pc without a problem or another IT could, and quickly solve the problem even when not on location. Also, I save on the cost of av's, and also could configure the filesystem to be encrypted, thus preventing any data from being stolen.


Cheers,

Alphalutra1

 

i have windows installed, but i also have a new HDD too, when i get my act together and buy a new router i'll take out this HDD and not use Windows again.

i would recommend switching yes. infact i recently listened to a podcast where they talked about that exact thing. business licences are very much cheaper, but it really is incredible how quickly the money adds up, especially when it comes to renewing the licences, then perhaps having to install new hardware. - all costs that Linux doesn't need!

there's a big push toward using thin clients with Linux. the hardware is generally old and not able to run Windows, but as Linux is very adaptable the hardware can easily run Linux. Thin-clients are perfect for schools and businesses where saving money is important.

 

there's lots of places that have switched if i search on google, but i don't know about a list

 

Linux is for PC enthusiasts or those who could not afford windows. Corporate America is staying with windows, at least for the next 5 years.

 

I envy those who have Linux running smoothly on your computers.

I had really bad luck with Linux. I tried Suse 9.0, Fedora 4.0, Mandriva 2005, and Debian 3.1 a while ago. The only one that I managed to install and start successfully on my laptop was Suse. All the other ones either failed in installation or could not start because of hardware problems. Even with Suse 9.0, my laptop hung frequently. I had to ditch Linux at the end.

I used DOS and Unix for several years, and I could program well with C/C++, Visual Basic, JAVA, and etc. I really could not believe that I am too dumb for Linux. What I can say is that Linux still has problems, especially in its hardware support. I did spend a couple of weeks on finding the hardware drivers on Linux platform for my laptop. But not really successful, just because some of them were not developed for Linux yet.

I do not really believe in Open Source. It is said that the benefit of open source is that the source code can be reviewed by peers and any security problem could be found and patched quickly. But I doubt how effective it could be. Reading codes is a totally different story than reading novels or writing codes. At least, I would never read codes written by others if I do not have to. There are just too many other things in the world that are more interesting than reading codes by others. Even there are really some geeks who can find fun in reading codes, how many codes can they really read, considering there are thousands of free open source Linux packages out there? Let alone most people have to make a living, have a family to support, and so on, and thus perhaps there is really not much free time left for such code reading. In addition, Open Source is really a two-side sword. Peers can review the source to find the holes, so do the hackers. The problem is, who is more motivated to find the security holes, the peers or the hackers? There is nothing wrong with Open Source, and it is indeed a good idea. However, it is nothing close to a magic either.

I do not really like Windows, and I eager to find an alternative. But I do not think Linux is a good substitute at this time yet, at least for my particular laptop hardware. I did manage to run Linux within VMWare for a couple of months. With my previous experience with UNIX, it is indeed quite easy for me to use Linux. However, I do not feel Linux is really as magical as that claimed by some Linux users. Just as Windows, it has its own problems. People just tend to ignore the drawbacks if they fall love in something.

Many Linux distributions are free, and the beauty of Linux has been claimed by many for years. On the other hand, Windows is expensive, and it is blamed for years for various reasons. However, Linux is still far away from being popular on the market. There is always a reason for that.

 

I have to disagree with you ronjor, linux is a viable option for a company or bussines already, it is a myth that you have to do everything from the commandline to get things to work like in the days of DOS.
I use it every day and i don't have to use the commandline for normal day to day things, even installing new software is 'click and go' just like in windows.

On top of that, i think it's time for something new in the OS-market, it's in desparate need of some competition.
All this talk about hackers and virus makers targetting linux isn't going to stop the spreading and use of this system.And even if there are virusses in the wild for linux, it's not perfect, it's just software nothing more, the user would have to deal with it just like in windows.

Lamehand

 

Great discussion! Unfortunely I've come late again and what I could say has been said So I'll iterate :

Dog said 'Linux isn't any more difficult than Windows ... its just different - it takes time to learn something new to you. Once you invest some time learning it's a snap.'

Mrkvonic said 'Linux is more secure, and it's sexier too.'
sexier, lol agreed.

Here I've probably about most of the OSes you could name. I havent say migrated from unix to nt, I just play. What I'm saying is keep your Windows and Linux, as dog said invest some time and its a snap. tip, Its good to have a linux on the network while looking for malware on windows.

 

Ernie Ball switched over to Red Hat.

http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/11/27/021127hnerniball.html?s=IDGNS



And I guess this is a list of other companies.

http://lxer.com/module/db/viewby.php?dbn=12&uid=108

 

interesting story

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2005/tc2005067_2133_tc024.htm

 

Hello,
Ronjor, as to the Linux vulnerabilities, most of them are local. Most of Windows vulnerabilities are remote, to say nothing of the local.
Basically, if you have access to a machine, you can do a lot, anyhow.
But with good firewall, you should be ok, and with a good browser, you should be more than ok.
Mrk

 

"But has Linux hit a wall? Don't bet on it. "

 

I have the feeing that Linux is not user friendly at all dut to CLI. I am not talking of users of wilders, I am talking from an ordinary user,s point of view.
If someone just want to slect a distro, he will be surprised wat to choose? So many distros and how many he can try before settling on one, and how long he should try to select a distro?

I just wonder how u people compare Mac OS , it is more secure than windows and linux both, and better supported( ignoring the cost)?

 

But at least you can choose what suites you best, in windows there are only two choices, either yo stick to XP (as long as it is suported) or you migrate to vista next year.

I can say that the CLI in linux is a very powerfull tool and of course you will have to learn to use the various commands but you have to be willing to learn.The CLI isn't the thing that makes linux user-unfriendly, after all you and i had to learn how to use windows aswell, linux is just a different OS and anybody willing can learn how to use it.

Lamehand

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since OSX and Linux are sort of like bastard half cousins, I think they're about as secure as each other. I can't back it up wiht any data, but I would guess that holes are fixed quicker in Linux due to it being open source.

There's something about a Mac though, even if they are using intel chips now... They're just cool.

 

Well they may be bastard half cousins, but Mac now has $150 million step father named MS.

 

Most of the problems the author had in the WSJ article (multimedia, office docs, etc.) appear to be solved in the SLED10 distro. Serious competition can only benefit end users. It will be interesting.

I've read in an article posted a short time ago here that some of these vulnerability reporting sites unfairly multiply the vulnerabilities in Linux. So there may be a Linux kernel vulnerability but that vulnerability is listed also as a vulnerability in each distro, effectively multiplying one exploit into dozens. I don't know if this is true (of any or all the sites), but if true, wouldn't it be more fair to compare Windows XP vulnerabilities with each distro's vulnerabilities? There are more versions of say SUSE than Windows XP, but it would be more of an even comparison.

 

I originally came here today to post a question regarding Alexa and a program that said I had Alexa spyware installed. I decided I would try to figure out this Alexa thing, but I think I changed my mind. I'm tired of screwing with Alexa. Everyone knows Alexa = Spying on you, and yet everyday someone tries to redefine spying on you by Microsoft to, "this has nothing to do with Microsoft".

(I'm going to connect this with the current issue, though some may attempt to redefine this as unrelated to Windows Vs. *nix.

Right, so I decide to start from the ground up and find out some info on the related topic of MSN seach page, and what it does that is undesireable, and from there decide how to permanently fix this. So I look for my registered home and search pages and start with one of them,

http://ie.search.msn.com/{SUB_RFC1766}/srchasst/srchcust.htm

As far as I know, there are more than one computer in the world that has this on there computer, am I right? So I copy and past that into google and hit search. What do you suppose I got from the largest search data base on the planet (that I know of):

NO RESULTS FOUND

So I say fine, maybe this is a little more exotic than I had though, I'm going to try Answers.Com, so I do. This time I get one result, and it is called,

"Best of the Web"

It is apparently one of the two best sites on the entire internet. Then I think, well maybes I should just put search.msn.com in my hosts file and just pretend I'm a little better off.

So I decide to look at my hosts file. and I see it sitting there and I use open. What happens next is well know. Windows does not know how to open this file. (and you have to supply the program name "notepad" or whatever from a list, but already being sort of annoyed at M$ for having re-written the internet, I ask myself. "Wait a second HandsOff, Microsoft wrote XP, Microsoft must certainly know what file to use to open hosts, right? Why are they now acting stupid (a role they play so well)? Could it be that they do not really want to user to be able to circumvent sites at all, naw! Just a little oversight, just like the last five years of updates not fixing it...just more of those famous oversights. Then I enter notepad, and notice that the box that says always use this program is greyed out and think, wait, why can't I tell windows to always use notepad to open this...

Hopefully, you get the idea. The *nix user has to fight real issues with real answers, and the Windows user has to fight an uncooperative, all powerful entitiy who appears at every turn to be ignoring and hiding security vulnerabilities. Let's be real here. That is the ultimate issue that is going to burry Windows.

To be balanced I will give my reason for not migrating to ubuntu right this second: I already have a good set of programs that run on XP, and I am willing to give up security and performance because my computer is mine, and I am not, for instance, responsible for the privacy of customers, or anything like that. If I were, I could not in good conscience run windows since everyone knows it will never be secure.

as to who would risk their corporations with other than Windows? Towards the end of 1997 Windows had something a little over 20% of the server market across all domains. Now, at the beginning of the year Windows had a little over 20% of the server market. I know we weren't talking about servers by my point is about the why it is so hard to believe anything about microsoft. Doing a search on google to check these numbers, one is confronted with headlines like: Microsoft continues to gobble up the server market..., an on, and on.

I think what they meant was, "Microsoft contiues to rewrite history".

Windows will hang on for who knows how long due to its intrenched position. Still, I don't hear a lot of people saying "Linux is just a flash in the pan, Microsoft has no worries."

Well, as you can tell my points are based on the principle that "intentions count." If someone's intentions are counter to mine, I can only be successful part of time. I do have to sleep. I do have other things I have to do other than try to keep malware off of my computer.

The successful counter to my view is that, "Microsoft opperates with a high degree of integrity, and is a champion for the causes of privacy, confidentiallity, and honest. If you heard it from Microsoft, you can believe it." I reallize I am not a computer guru, and therefore am not going to fall into the trap of it's different here here, and here. Not that those things aren't important, but I don't think what they do is as important as What they are trying to do.



- HandsOff

 

you know i think the people who are best placed to have an authoritative opinion about which OS is best are the people who have used both OS's for a reasonable amount of time. not someone who has used Windows for years and tried out Linux afew times and maybe not got it setup correctly.

you have to have used each OS for months at a time to have a fair idea which is best.

if you listen to the people who have spent time with both OS's then you will have a better idea from the most informed people.

the same goes for the CLI, of course i thought i'd never want to use it, but i love it now. so if you ask the question how many people know how to use the command line in Linux? if yes, do you like it and use it instead of the GUI?

then you will see the answers will be very, very one-sided!!

 

Well, I believe that GUI was created because people were tired of command lines long time ago.