In what way is Linux superior to Vista?

I didn't read very many of the posts.

In two very big ways any frequently updated Linux distro is superior to Vista. That is weekly or monthly maintenance. No AV scanning, no antispyware/malware scanning. And no defragging. That saves 5 to 20 hours a month.

And the biggy. Being able to flawlessy & freely backup your distro in less than 30 minutes. And to restore it to a previous state in less than 5 minutes. This can save a couple hours to a couple days. See:

http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/remastersys.html

 

Just an FYI: just because ext3 doesn't have a defrag program doesn't mean it's not needed. ext3 may be more resistant than NTFS towards fragmentation, but it eventually suffers from it all the same, and AFAIK when that happens you have no way of fixing it.

Vista has scheduled defrag operations by default, and runs in the background when needed with negligible slowdown for me. YMMV. As for antivirus, UAC and Windows FW are my only defenses on Vista. I've never seen the need for additional protection, though admittedly I wouldn't recommend what I'm doing to other people...

Remastersys was new and useful info to me though. Thanks.

 

I have run ext3 Linux installations for years under heavy use in institutions, never have I ever experienced any fragmentation. Countless papers have been written and research has been done, the level of fragmentation suffered by NTFS is far more than ext 3 system. Also let me ask, why is Windows till today not updating the NTFS file system? In Linux world, we have got several updates and now we will get ext4 with the new Ubuntu 9 series, however I see the same old NTFS that I used in my NT in the latest Windows 7.

http://www.linux.com/articles/32002

 

Just do a google search for ext3 fragmentation. Here's a sample: http://www.h-online.com/open/Tuning-the-Linux-file-system-Ext3--/features/110398/3

ext4 includes defrag utilities; a step in the right direction. Unfortunately it won't be in Jaunty...

 

http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2006/08/17/why_doesn_t_linux_need_defragmenting

Go through this and it will tell you why it doesnt' need it and unlike my Windows installations, the Linux ones keeps getting faster.

 

Of the 2 ways I think Linux is superior to Vista. I should reversed the order I typed them. By far I think being able to flawlessy & freely backup your distro in less than 30 minutes. And to restore it to a previous state in less than 5 minutes. That reason alone makes Linux far superior IME. See:

http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/remastersys.html

 

Pedro, thank you! Seems to be a really nice introduction.

 

I know this article. Yes, it confirms that ext3 can suffer under fragmentation under specific circumstances but in general it's a minor problem compared to NTFS.

 

FYI.

2 factors, as mentioned EXT3 fragments less, is it very very rare for normal desktop OR server usage for Ext3 to suffer enough performance loss from fragmentation to become a bottle neck, there simply has not been the demand for a defrag tool.

Also even when EXT3 does fragment performance hit is less (as long as you have adequate free space), as the EXT3 driver atleast tries to put file blocks on nearest cylinders possible and intelligently spacing files across the drive in the first place (so they have room to grow).
EXT3 fragmentation resistance has improved through its lifespan as the EXT3 devs have added new features to try and minimise fragmentation happening, rather than develop a tool to fix the symptoms. This is why EXT4 defrag tool is still not release quality as they keep finding ways to reduce fragmentation so implement these rather than finish their defrag tool (which is still in alpha/beta stage).

If fragmentation is an issue (eg AV file editing - streaming large amounts of data ) you have the choice of different file systems - eg XFS has legendary fragmentation resistance AND comes with a native defrag tool.

BTW I agree with you on Windows security, I also only add an AV tool, along with sensible permissions configuration.

 

This doesn't answer the original question exactly but may answer some related questions: http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

 

That's fair enough. But as far as I'm personally concerned, the introduction of ext4, new anti-defrag measures AND native defrag tools simply means that ext3's fragmentation resistance is, well, not quite there yet. I know ext3 is more resistant than NTFS towards fragmentation, but as to whether it doesn't need defragging, I think the answer is that it does - otherwise there'd be no need for Linux devs to invest time in yet more anti-defrag mechanisms and defrag utilities in ext4.

So you have a fragmentation-resistant system that eventually DOES get fragmented all the same, and a less-resistant system that comes with unobtrusive, automatically-scheduled defrag tools. The ideal choice would be ext3 with Vista's silent, automatic defrag, but if I had to choose what's available right now I'd go with NTFS.

Heh, guess I just learned something new again. Does Ubuntu support XFS, by any chance?

 

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/XFS

 

In 2001 when EXT3 was released it was easily capable of managing the common file sizes and partition sizes without performance or fragmentation issues.

In 2001 when EXT3 was released it was fine.
But now its a bit long in the tooth, doesn't handle current common file sizes and capacities that well, EXT4 is designed to remedy this.

But even now, for your average Desktop/Server usage, fragmentation is still not commonly a problem, still does a good job of clustering related blocks together (by directory, by file). Not saying that it never is a problem and as I mentioned, the Devs would rather fix the filesystem to be more fragmentation resistant, than writing a tool to defrag (why the EXT4 tool is still beta even though the filesystem has been released).

Ubuntu supports XFS, I cant boot with it even though it supports booting, but works fine on other partitions.
I am waiting EXT4 though.

 

Windows tech attacks Linux tech because FOSS is hurting his income. This is proof, IMO, that Windows service techs see the advantages of using Linux.

 

Holy cow thats scary and I got Ubuntu stickers all over my car and even office. I also wear Ubuntu T shirts from time to time. Guess gotta watch my back.

 

that is completely crazy.
No matter what os is used the user will have problems and need someone to sort it out. unix based OS's may be more reliable than windows but they arent bulletproof.
Im assuming the main problems users will have with linux willl be installing software that isnt in the repos and also configering some system settings.
A user may also mess up their x server by in properly updating the display drivers and be left with just commandline.
every OS has issues and users will always have problems even if it isnt the systems fault.

Technicans are there incase problems arise.
I really do hate the fact companies perposely install an operating system for users knowing it will have issues so they can fix it later on.
I cant belive those idoits are in my line of work....

 

Linux is also superior in having much cockier users. An average Windows Vista chap will start to cry when you bash (sic) their favorite OS. The Linux users will take all and any criticism toward their favorite kernel release with extreme difficulty.

Furthermore, Linux is superior in that all distros are great, even those that terribly suck.

Cheers,
Mrk

 

There is one very big attribute of Linux that hasn't been mentioned here yet, from the day of install, I have been trying out various stuff, from XBMC to Banshee to many other new stuff that comes out in various other categories. I install all of them, try them out and usually remove them if I don't have the need for them or don't find their performance satisfactory. Not for once has my OS complained or crashed because of these multiple installs and uninstalls. I suggest you try that with any flavor of Windows and see the fit it would throw. My OS has been running from the day Intrepid was launched and I must have tried out close to hundred if not more programs on it by now. Can't help it, there are so many goodies to try out in Linux and all are free. I have no registry throwing a fit, or system file folder bloated with residues of removed programs. Any other stuff is taken care by a nice sudo apt-get autoremove command.

 

Yeah, that's one nice thing about Linux. Any Windows installation, Vista or XP or whatever, will eventually hose itself one way or another with a lot of installs and uninstalls and general messing with apps, drivers and so on. I have yet to see any of this type of problem with Linux myself. So I agree on that one....

 

with linux i can do what i want - browse, play music/videos etc. on vista it's just like having a screenshot of a desktop with an error sound going off every 30 mins - you can't do anything. i think linux is superior because i can do stuff with it.

 

Linux is good , why compare linux and vista , first vista needs to be compared with xp .I like xp bcos many softwares are suported on xp, rather than any other os.First u need to see whether linux or vista matches your needs.

 

Let me give a small example, on my XPx64, just to try out, I installed Avast, it ran well but then I realized under full system wide DEP, the scanning with explorer extension would crash Avast, same if any virus were detected by Avast via Web scanner would crash Avast, it would go away once I set DEP to OptIn but then purpose of secuirty is defeated in that case. I removed Avast and put back Avira, no issues but then I noticed that even though I had removed Avast under Safe more with their uninstall tool, there were lots of system files left over in system32\drivers and also myriad of registry entries. Even though I didn't have any issues with Avira, I decided to clean the Avast entries up under Safe mode, after removing all I rebooted and immediately, explorer crashed, on subsequent reboot, it did not crash but still it would happen sporadically. This is one of the prime faults of Windows install module which would invariably leave over remnants in the system folder and registry. Same issue wouldn't be faced under Linux.

 

Having used both, I prefer XPx64 over Vistax64 anyday, the speed difference, stability etc. is far superior.

 

Being a new ubuntu user Im trying to ponder on the benefits over Vista (64 on both in my case)

The main advantage that I see with Ubuntu is that its so configurable (and for free) Whatever I yet have thought could be better than the default install I have found a way to tweak ubuntu to do it, someone has already done that and shares it with the rest Just search and install.

I know this is a bit like swearing in church; I seem to be one of the very few who have a very fast Vista. But I have found that with a little tweaks Ubuntu (haven tried it witout compiz) is easily as fast and sometimes faster. But to be fair I did allot of tweaking in Vista too to get it fast.

Even though I wasnt particularly worried about malware in Vista I can say that the fact that there are almost no malware for linux out there (and if they get in they wont do much harm as I understand it) gives the same warm fuzzy feeling HIPS'n'stuff once, when I was into that, gave in the windows world

 

I have to agree with you there, my Vista x64 has always been fairly fast too, but in all honesty I think Ubuntu x64 and XP x64 beat it out. I haven't even tweaked Vista at all though, so I'm not sure how good I could get it. Ubuntu is quite snappy though, I always come to realize that it's faster when I go from one to the other.