Linux vs. Windows; your thoughts?
Josh-
Royal Oak, MI
I get this could be somewhat contreversial to some people..does anyone care to discuss the pro-s and con-s of windows vs. linux? I would 
0
Comments
There you have it.
There are pros/cons to each, though.
Linux lets you play with the source and apply patches to allow the kernel to be tweaked for certain things--eg: multimedia.
Windows has so many applications that help one to tweak the O/S w/out having to re-compile the kernel, or having to compile a module.
Whatever O/S floats your boat is the one to use.
For my desktop, I use Windows. I just don't like the struggle that goes on w/ Linux when I have to use it as a desktop machine day-in and day-out. Of course, I haven't used Linux as a desktop for probably 2-3 years so things could have changed, but even when I deal with it for other things it has the same feel, so I doubt it has changed enough for me to switch just yet. Who knows what 5 years down the road will look like.
As primesuspect said: it pwns the datacenter world. With a graphical interface not needed, it saves CPU/resources, and also is very stable.
What the man said.
I feel very uncomfortable with windows now. It is definatly not easier to use, and things just don't seem to work very well. When I first started migrating to linux on my desktop, it was very strange and hard to use. But now that I know both OS's, linux is ALOT easier to install, use, and maintain. No defrags, no format/reinstall problems. Applications don't have to be reinstalled when upgrading or reinstalling the OS, you just move the binary's and configs (which are in logical places in plain view, no magical registry entrys) and your browser, or games just run like you never moved at all. Things either work or they don't, and when applications have a problem they provide output to fix them. Programs don't just crash, and when something is wrong you can easily see where it's dieing.
I cringe when I see a windows workstation. But, I'm a professional user, not a gamer or media developer.
I use 98 SE, hate XP with a passion, and use Linux for surfing 90% of the time and email pickup, and common office work.
To my mind, if you are a gamer, stick with Windows. If you are an audio or video production specialist, for NOW stick with Windows. For inexpensive business accounting, stick with Windows (Quickbooks Pro or Peachtree Complete for business use)
OTOH, if you are a general user with not so heavy business needs, want to play Cds instead of produce new music, do not need to create DVD multimedia with mouse clicks easily, want an office suite that will import, edit, and export MS Office compatible things, use Linux with OpenOffice 1.1 or look at StarOffice 7.0. For accounting of non-enterprise kind with simple inventory, you can use a Linux accounting app. For complex accounting, multi-tier sales records plus service, I am getting Peahctree Complete and that will be on the Windows 98 SE Barton box.
But, to my mind, KDE 3.1.3 in MAndrake 9.2 PowerPack looks and feelsd awful like XP if you want it to. It blows Mandrake 9.1 away, as KDE has matured some on its way to 3.1.3. Lindows does not use a Gnome desktop base, it uses a KDE\Wine\Linux base. KDE will eat RAM, but by running a STOCK Enterprise kernel in Mandrake, your board can be pumped to 2+ GIG of RAM and RAM squeezes vanish. Do not try to install 9.1 with 2 GIG in, but 9.2 will use the Enterprise Kernel automatically if it sees more than the base kernale can handle (somehwere around 860 MB). Improved installer, nVidia mfr drivers come with the PowerPack and get autoinstalled, and it rocks. Folding folds in a Konsole in KDE, I can run 6 desktops if want, and wierdly enough I imposed Keramik and adjusted the colors milder that the XP-ish look. The latest XFT does handle better looking fonts,and does it well. StarOffice 7.0 has canned into it spell checking in quite a few languages (your choice, can choose MORE than one), and has more accurate helps and manual. It also has tuned for good display XFT compatible fonts bundled, as did StarOffice 6.0 to a degree. OpenOffice is free. StarOffice is sold. SO 7 for bundled fonts, adn turned on spell checking that detects youo native language itself by your locale settings and time zone.
For those of you not ready to make the leap, look at StarOffice 7.0 or OpenOffice in Widnows, it acts very much the same in Linux. For those of you unhappy with load RAM impact, run Oowriter to start up, not Ooffice (Ooffice loads toolbar kinds of icons on the taskbar and reserves RAM for fast start, running Oowriter you do NOT get that loaded and the File|New lets you open the other modules also).
John.
I've had longer uptime on my LAPTOP than alot of windows user I know get by before formatting.
I'm running RHEL 3 WS, and it will probably stay that way for atleast the next year, if not two. I can guarentee my laptop will never crash once, unless I drop it again
I've seen people say install linux if you want something to play with. The oposite is true, install linux if you want your computer to work, install windows if you constantly want to mess with something. Don't tweak it, don't overclock it, use it as a usefull tool and not a playtoy. Heh, probably why the linux section of any hardware forum is DEAD
At the least if you need commercial business support for office applications, DVD's, etc. buy and use a mac OS. Unless your just a die hard gamer, windows is a worthless POS. You can try to argue either way, but unless you have 3-4 years of professionally using BOTH I'm going to have a hard time agreeing.
Why use XP, rather then windows 98 SE?
- Saves you time.
Is at least 10 times more reliable then Windows 98 SE.
- Increases your productivity.
- Secures your data and personal information
- Keeps you better connected
Windows XP also offers a greater level of security then Windows 98 SE. These may include: Internet Firewall, and the ability to encrypt files and folders.
Lastly, Windows XP gives you more ways to keep connected. You can easily setup networks to share printers and files, and an internet connection. Or, work directly on your office PC from home; with the remote desktop feature. XP also has built in support for wireless networking. To get the most out of your computer, and save from being laughed at and called a n00bie, get windows XP.
-.-
Josh
And I don't know how often you use XP, rob (in fact I do know....
Work== Linux
Play== Windows
Linux..or Windows
?
Based on stability, ect.
web? Linux or OpenBSD
file/print? Windows
DNS? Linux or OpenBSD
firewall/gateway/internet access server? OpenBSD
Exchange? Windows
Database? Linux
and Rob knows that I have many more than 4 years of vast experience on all platforms (incl. mac and weird unixes such as irix) so he'll at least hear me out
That is fairly true. Work use linux, play use windows.
I don't have time to play with my computer, I need it to be there when I need it.
using windows to work would be like driving a suped up mustang to work everyday. Sure its a blast to build. Runs like a raped ape and can benchmark like mad. But, that one morning you get up and have to go to work and it doesn't start then what?
I used XP several months before it was released, I used to play too even though most of you don't know it. I used to run wicked raid arrays, benchmarked all the latest goodies, and competed with friends on who could build the fastest baddest machines and we used windows. I still did that somewhat when XP came around and it IS better. Its biggest drawback is that it trys to do everything, and the only stability problems come from that. But that was a toy, and I realize it was a toy. I never thought it was the best solution, it was the platform we used to play on.
But, I still need to get up and drive to work everyday, and I would rather take a BMW that just starts and runs than a mustang that can out benchmark a vette yet can't idle long enough for a red light.
I built cars too at one time, when I was a teenage kid. I build toy computers too, and I outgrew both :P
any comments on that?
=/
Translation: I can't think of a single intellegent responce, so I resort to sarcasm LALALALA
:P
The fact this very forum thats filled with windows enthusiasts is powered by..... linux.... should make you think twice about a windows solution.
is this a real webserver? Or a around the house appliance?
If your serious about hosting, get an account with sarcnet or rent a managed linux machine. Either one would mean you can host your websites without knowing linux, one is about 10x more expensive than the other.
If its just something to do and a place to put a couple public files then windows is fine. If you can sit down and fix it, and when its down your not losing money, then take the easy route unless you want to invest some time.
At your age, all you have is time, dawg!
Spot on. Only thing I would add is solaris is a viable, yet expensive platform. Also, OpenBSD is a very manual process. IMHO use it with the included packages, and don't mess with it, and it will run forever and a day without touching it. Add a few packages from source, and you'll find yourself patching manually. It's a VERY hardened OS, but being that it has such stringent requirements on its code means not alot of packages will be 'supported'.
I take Brian's advice, but he's a working professional that uses multi platforms. When he says something I know its from experience and not what he read, from someone thats only spouting what they read, and so on.
lol!
yes, Solaris is a very very viable webserver and database server platform. sarcnet industries hosts 90% of our clientele on Solaris. It is a bit more expensive on the hardware side, but solaris running on a sun ultrasparc processor does indeed perform very well.
They get you in with awesome deals on the low end hardware, then you look at their commercial web server, java server, and other commercial applications and you've just spent more in software than you spent for the entire machine!
IIRC, you guys use apache. Not bad at all, but then your back to the manual patching problem of OpenBSD. Also, Sun isn't quite as quick on the update side of things as BSD or linux, but alot quicker than windows and other commercial unix solutions.
FAIR warning, do not use Windows or DOS native multiboot choice programs to multiboot at all when XP is present and Linux is present, you will get progressive BIG messes including XP or Linux's boot sectors being overwritten with a boot sector that will keep you from accessing one or both as they use a DOS boot sector. Use LINUX to control the multiboot, and these days with Mandrake I favor GRUB of the latest version for this. You can set your grub sector to be in a different place than XP's boot secotr, but I find too many conflicts to do this on one drive without reloading both every 3-6 months. I have been playing with Linux for over 2 years now, and destroyed more warm multiboots than you can shake a stick at-- whole tree would be needed to show how many branch choices can be WRONG with multiboot, so I "just say NO to multiboot." Linux can be expanded over multiple HD mechs easier than Windows, look at a 40 BG for it to start, in a removable cold-swap tray. Set BIOS to autodetect Hds, do not use fixed definitions for any IDE position that will have a swap bay hooked to it, and the drive mechs get jumperd and the non-existent bay\tray IDE jumpers ignored. Kingwin tray\bay carrier sets are optimized for CS drive jumpering on modern boxes.
John-- who is grateful for cooler weather until the SLK-900A arrives, Barton box was thermal alarming in MBM 5 and dying every 3-4 hours of 98 SE run and folding output halved for a wamrer while on the Barton box with any OC after a couple hours- consistent with higher ambient case temps. Mom likes warm, boxes like cooler than she does or I do.
In terms of simple usability in the point-and-click sense and a progression toward security, I would go this way:
Windows, Lindows, Linux of desktop kind(KDE most point and click familair to a Windows maybe migrator, most RAM hungry, Gnome more toward more unfamiliar point and click use and less RAM hungry), Linux of server\enterprise kind, FreeBSD, Solaris, OpenBSD, Unix. Some might switch FreeBSD and Solaris, or OpenBSD and Solaris, but I ma starting from a Widnwos experienced perspective given overall hands-on time with DOS and Windows versus *nix's.
John.
Anyone understand WTH he just said?