Discussion in 'other software & services' started by Antarctica, Feb 25, 2007.
Very interesting comparison between those two OS
An interesting read, and many of the things discussed are apparent in my own recent dabbling with Linux. In a sense, yes I want Linux to be a better and free version of Windows. To be honest, I really just want it to be able to to do for me what XP can do for me but in a safer, stabler and more secure way.
My recent expreience with Mepis has been wonderful, and I'm still in the process of tweaking it, but I have no plans to give up XP just yet. I was lucky to try Mepis as my 4th distro to install and found that its hardware detection was good enough to recognise most of the stuff on my rather old laptop. Finally I could adjust screen brightness and have suitable screen resolution. Other distros either failed dismally (ubuntu was the worst) or had limitations.
In terms of multimedia, Linux distros have a vast repository of packages available, but in the end nothing plays windows codecs like windows software. I found playing wmv files in Linux very cpu intensive, so much so that it can become chunky and slow.
Hibernation: well, this is something I don't think will ever resolve itself on my machine in a Linux environment.
I am going to stick with Mepis, as I enjoy learning how to do things in Linux and I'm growing to like the environment and "world view" contained therein. However, I will continue to use Windows for those things which at this stage, it does better for me.
Perhaps one day, in a near utopian world, manufacturers will develop drivers for Linux/BSD first and then Windows secondly, a world where a linux distro will work virtually "out of the box" on any machine. Or perhaps it will be a world where we choose our machine depending on what OS we intend to run.
That world is not far away.
It is a good article. Perhaps all should read it before try Linux. Probably this quote from the article sums it up for me
I am just looking for an alternative to Windows.
The problems I do find with Linux (now and in the past) is that it is slower than Windows which is not what I had expected in a fresh install. My 2k has been installed a long time and has a lot of rubbish installed but is still responsive.
Anyway it is useful to have an alternative O/S when things go awry, and at the end of the day it is whatever lights your candle.
linux will never be a windows, or as good as.
vista is great, but i still think the leaders in OS is MAC OSX, apple tend to bring everything out first that windows try to inoperate in the 'next version', or with service packs.
"as good as" regarding what?
idiot proofing obviously
Linux already kicks Windows ass in o so many ways
full blown GUI desktops are here and to a large extent easier to setup than Windows,
what is "lacking" is games
(they seem to be what make the geeks go round, well.......right after p0rn)
That is right, Windows is supposed to be comfortable and everyone can use it unlike Linux.
Linux is simply for those, who spend their life at the computer, so they have time to try it.
Ice_Czar is a nice example, Linux user has to know everything, Windows user is just a user.
you are totally wrong - a linux user has to know very little because it's secure, whereas a windows user has to know all about security (which pretty much means everything about a computer)
Catching Viruses ?!?
as good as ripping everyone off?
Idiot proofing, why did i not think of that?
I have looked, and there are plenty of games for GNU/Linux . Just not the majority (every lame game that pops). For those who want to chill sometimes and kill others online ) ), there is enough. For massive gamers - you need PS.
I always respect your posts. But here you miss the fact that you know alot of Windows. I've been trying lots of OS's (that's another point, what GNU based OS are you talking about) and at least 3 make it friendly for the newcomer. There's a lot of exagerating going around too. The soop is not layed in front of you, but with a little reading, you can cook those vegies.
The obvious answer, thank you
Another one that i didn't remember.
C.S.J: it's like in the article: depends on the perspective. And trust.
That is it, I admit it, I am not skilled enough to try out Linux. I saw a manual to instal ATI driver on Ubuntu and that scared me off. Windows user does not need to search a manual to instal anything, it is just: next - next - OK and it is done. If I want to learn something about Windows, it is because I want to, not because I am forced too. In Ubuntu a user has to type apt get .. and etc and that is just looks so complicated. And as you wrote, the main problem of Linux is, that it is not united, it looks to me like Linux ditributions are fighting each other to get more users and that is not helping neither. A newcomer has to try out at least a few of them to get a picture and that takes time, which most people do not have. And by the way, this is not a topic Linux vs Windows, but maaaany Linuxes vs 1 Windows, because the newests is the way to go, whetever users want or not. I have tried a few Live CDs, go through many Linux articles, rpm vs deb and so on and I have found out, that Linux just is not for me and that is it. Yes, Linux is better by design (no registry, all settings in files, etc), but Windows is just better for now, easier to use with only minimal knowledge needed.
You pretty well sum it up. Linux is a struggle but I did manage to get it up and running. After a few days of using it off and on I noticed there was a pop up showing that some bits needed upgrading. Ok so I did that and on reboot I was thrown into text mode saying something about the video driver that I did not understand nor know what to do.
I did notice on a second reboot I could still use the old setup and that took me back to the GUI.
I still have a problem using anything on it because it is slow when compared to Windows. Whereas most apps in Win load within a few seconds it takes much longer in Linux and no one seems to address this.
I had this same issue some years ago when I tried out Suse and received a lot of help from various experts but none of them could give a reason for the slowness.
Id have to agree its a matter of appearances rather than reality of usability
hand a default install Windows platform to an 8 year old and how long before its unusable?
hand a default install of Suse to an 8 year old, has a GUI most of the built in applications for surf, video and schoolwork, but far far less likely to be hijacked\infected\subverted
point is you have to learn in either platform, the reality is Im far more comfortable in Windows than Linux, because I understand it, it took 6 years to understand it, from what Im able to gather my migration to Linux (as a power user) is going to be about 1\3rd > 1\4 of that.
On the other hand Ive been using various Linux Distros (as an "idiot") for several years, Knoppix & Suse, I didnt know the first thing about bash but I didnt need to either. Now Im embarking on Linux "total control", like I kid myself I have in Windows, but in truth Im coming to the relaization there is actually less to learn in total, the "hump" is understanding bash
There are two points everyone needs to know about Linux:
1. Linux Market Share is still 0.35% for a reason.
2. And Windows XP is more secure than Linux:
You should read the article first before commenting on market share.
And number of vulnerabilities says very little to me. What kind of vulnerabilities are the important thing.
I also read from your site the lumping together of all GNU/Linux OS's. What OS are you comparing?
Re: Two Points
Yes, there are lots of reasons:
-Microsoft deals with OEMs.
-Lack of support from hardware manufacturers.
-Popular knowledge against Linux.
Exactly my thinking, Linux scares me. Some days I'd like to try it but right now because of my job, I don't have enough time to invest learning
a new OS.
Maybe after I retired.
Re: Two Points
Well you got one right of many. Probably the most important one:
-Linux Advocates still do not actually understand why no one uses it.
Re: Two Points
Follow me on this one: download VMware Player, and get an appliance (vm already built with an OS installed) ; or VirtualBox, and download Ubuntu (or Kubuntu), or SUSE, or some other. VirtualBox allows you to buid a vm (a virtual machine or computer) with your preferences and install the OS in it. Presto, you get to see it for yourself.
Again, read the article. Linux advocates don't gain anything from your choice, or most of them . It's a community, not Microsoft.
Read the article, humour me.
Re: Two Points
Having read a good bit of the article some are playing with statistics and you can do anything you want then.
I would guess as a non expert that in the end Linux would have the edge even though I prefer Windows - but what do I know?
Re: Two Points
I would be careful of making a sweeping statement based on only one source of information (what you get for writting information anaylsis systems)...
I just followed the links on that article (which he quotes as getting his stats from) and its now windows xp 178 v linux 111 ... vunerability.
Also the worst xp vunerability is "Highly critical" whereas the linux one is "moderately critical"... whatever that means :|
End of the day, as mentioned in the article they are different and should be treated different and you should pick your OS like a tool - the best one for the job, for me its Linux at Home, but at work we have a mix of Win2k Pro, XP and 2003 servers.
Re: Two Points
Is this more of your prefetched snake oil ?
And what were the "Criticality" levels between the two ?
av-comparatives August 2006 on-demand test used 321,339 samples (excluding DOS virus), now, how many "vulnerabilities" does XP have ?
Thats impossible to answer because it increases daily
Re: Two Points
Just to complete this, what Nick is saying:
Blind number counting means near to nothing to me. What kind of numbers in this case is THE important point.
edit: highlighted what i think is most important to note
Separate names with a comma.