Windows vs Linux

Of course! Because that would make Windows into free software!

Wait, no, that's not right. . . .

Why don't you try providing some actual technically valid arguments for why something is indeed the fault of Linux, or is not in fact the fault of Windows, rather than simply bitching at great length about how Windows seems to have a fuller dance card in the realm of ways it's at fault? Truth doesn't care if things seem unequal; it only cares if there's some kind of evidence to support the analysis.

. . . except your extension of the analogy doesn't translate well in valuative terms. So, whatever.

I get the impression you're trying to be insulting rather than raise any salient points. I'm not terribly surprised, considering the way you've been trolling for flames already, and throwing mindless criticism at anyone that doesn't agree with you.

1. the two real crappy software applications that I installed that causes the most problems with MS Windows are memory hogging pieces of shit called MS Word and MS Excel. Pity windows does not properly flush the RAM when a program closes like most other OSs

2. MS do NOT release their full code to hardware manufactures to enable them to write perfect drivers for Windows, thus many drivers do not work well and often require new ones after every patch is released, and always require a new driver for the next version of windows.

3. yes faulty drivers are ALWAYS the fault of the hardware manufacturer and not the OS regardless of which OS it is.

4. The one driver I currently have the biggest headache with in windows is the one for my 5 button MS Intellimouse - funnily some nerd has written a Linux one that works perfectly.

yes I prefer Linux and still use windows, why you aske because I need to have a machine with it handy and open to answer all those questions I get from friends, family and paying customers - How the F*** do you do this in this F***** windows xx shit again, it aint the same as the windows yy that I am used to.

Each of us has it's own preferences. Let us respect each other's opinions and go for what gives us comfort in our life: Linux or Windows. The decision is ours.

There are no instances of the letter A in "Ubuntu".

I didn't recommend either Ubuntu or Mandriva. I rather dislike both as Linux distributions go, though I'd rather use either than Windows most of the time.

You weren't directly attacked until after you'd spent some considerable time telling everyone with something positive to say about Linux how wrong they are for being zealots. Take a look in the mirror before you start looking at others for someone to blame for a rancorous air to the discussion.

You don't get a damned thing I'm saying if you think I'm discarding Windows out of hand. You should probably go back and read what I've said already without assuming I'm a zealot just because I prefer Linux. My "opinions" of Windows, as contrasted with Linux, come from long, hard-won experience with Windows, and a great deal of study. I've schooled Windows platform developers in Windows system architecture in these very discussion fora, I've explained at great length the issues I have with statements about Windows security based on the "security through obscurity" fallacy, and I've made very specific statements about the technical concerns of Windows and Linux systems that you've simply glossed over and ignored in favor of declaring me some kind of Great White Satan. Yeah, I guess I'm closed mind. I should ignore the technical data at my disposal, and instead take a politically correct, socially conscious approach to "tolerance" and "acceptance" of all operating systems for all purposes, except when judging them differently favors Microsoft. I'll get right on that.

The term you're looking for is "resort", not "result", and you're too late: you've already resorted to put-downs. Hypocrite.

We've offered to help if you would ask for it rather than launching into rants about how the non-Windows world is screwed up. You don't ask for help: you bitch about how Linux sucks because you can't x, y, and z. When you start asking for help like you're actually aware it's a favor to grant that help, people will start being more willing to provide it.

make a living. Hey if it were not for Windows, we'de be chewing on apples, which as of OSx would be less irritating than Windows IMO.

I kinda understand both camps and with Gates coming in during that early era and charging for software. Twas kinda against the main stream geekdom, but for crying out loud, if I make an accounting/POS/backoffice/inventory/CRM/ecommerce system for some company, why should I give it away for free? We don't live in a Utopia. Heck at that rate why don't all IT workers just work for free since its so much fun, and find other means of gainful employment. It really can't be had both ways. Just because Torvalds did what he did, does that lend reason to the notion that all software must be open source and free! Thats rediculous.

Linux is far more viable than Windows in a server env. anyday IMO, for many reasons including stability. But I think its far fetched to explain everything away by saying that people and companies are passing up Linux to lay down hard earned shekels on windows boxes simpy because they are uninformed. That is nonsensical! Windows does add value, usability, headaches, lockups, and hair loss, but at the end of the day, people are still buying it. It all doesn't just boil down to loving or hating Bill Gates or his philosophies.

With that said, until Windows' market share decreases to the point where its not profitable to write $oftware for it, I will still be there writing and supporting software and creating just plain cool integrated/converged/hybrid/[insert buzz word here] systems.

I think I heard a very accurate quote once...

"Milionaires work to build businesses, and billionaires work to build monopolies."

I'm just working on the Millions thing right now. I started too late to go for the Billion mark.

Software is not meant to be free. I do think its WAAAAY overpriced at times. But as a systems integrator myself, people are not paying for the software, as much as they are paying for the use of the whole system (hardware and software) and the results that system brings (happy customers, more efficient business, less employees, more automation, higher profitability, security). So if I can build software that isn't affected by the platform's stability, then the customer doesn't care if they have to reboot every once in a while, nor would they care if it ran on top of DRDOS.

I have found the best way to curb stability issues is to build a scaled down install of Windows, with all services clamped down and minimal services running. I get the OS into as clean/stable of a state as possible, install my proprietary software, then image the disk, and just load that image onto the client's machine, use a key changer script to put the new computer's new & valid (read legit) key in place, and install my software.

Then with MY stable configuration on the box, software and all, I MD5 all of the files on the entire disk, and sign up a service level agreement on that particular machine, that is valid only while no unauthorized software is installed, and no system files or settings are tampered with. Also, the computer hardware and software are not the property of the client, but rather remain under my companies ownership. That is how we can gaurantee uptime on those units via an SLA.

If something goes wrong, most data is held on a master DB server that gets incrementally backed up minute by minute to a tape array and a duplicate backup server.

If the main server fails, the second server immediately jumps in place, and we are notified that a server is down. We can very quickly image a new server, and have it in place in less than an hour. A little automatic replication and 5 minutes later...badabing! If a client machine goes down, again, peers and any servers on the network notice it, report to a server alert queue, and we in turn get a warning to come check up on things, and re-image another box and swap out the affected unit, with nearly no down time at all.

All on Windows boxes. So Windows is not necessarily unstable, just depends on who is using it, and who configures it. Also, cheap a$$ hardware can cause even Linux to bite the dust, no matter how good and stable it is.

I will say though, without even a hesitation, that nearly all flavous of Linux are 1000x more stable out of the box than windows will ever be. Rather let me put it this way, Linux out of the box is stable, Windows is *NOT*...

You just have to know what you're doing. Of course it is pathetic that the following statement is true:

"The best way to keep windows stable is to not install too much software on it"

Can you imagine how windows would die if all the apps in the GNU FSF and opensource included with most distros we're installed on windows. Kaplutz-city. Windows is good in a controlled environment. Note I said good, not outstanding...

I am wholeheartedly a Linux evangelist, but not to the detriment of my windows market/clients. With the exception of Java and a few other interpreted deals, it is by far, much more rapid a process developing a multi-tier GUI business app on Windows than on any other platform I have used, and YES I have tried others. I just don't like Java, its slow and ugly, and well, I am just not proficient in it. Bad excuse I know!

Anyways, yes, Linux Good, Windows Bad....Oooga oooga! {beating chest}

But I still use Windows too :-(

Linux is like that, but windows is like this. etc...

Linux is Linux (A popular free or not free download)

Windwos is Windows ( A popular free or not free download)

MacOSx is MacOSX ( A free or not free downlaod)

etc..

but aren't analogies fun.

check this out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operating_systems#IBM

This is not a constructive discussion!

Some like Windows, sone like Linux, some line BSD, some like OSX. So what? Thank God for choice!

All these OS are all out there, to run the applications we need.

What is not acceptable is all the tripe about compatibility difficulty, switching impossibility, corporate training nightmare, etc.

The fact is, you put your money where it counts for you. When there's a will there's a way. All the talk is a load of feable excuses, moaning, etc.

As IT Manager I introduced OSX servers in a Windows-2000-server-only business. My financial figure were right, my projected problems were correct. It worked.
As communications manager I introduced distributed Windows servers to a corporation sold on Novell technology. There were struggles, but it worked.
I could tell more stories, but the point is that in technology, it's the same as in every other area, when there is no pain there is no gain. You can have it all: move, switch, upgrade, etc; it will cost but you'll get there.

By the way, for home use, give Puppy Linux a try (you don't have to even come close to a command line). You may end up smiling.

I doubt the average home user cares about a text editor. Word processors, yes; text editors, no.

Do you actually have nothing better to do than time multiple OS installs? Seriously, what's your motivation? Why not install your intended OS and start using the box?

This isn't aimed at you alone, DE. I don't understood why anyone would want to spend their time repeatedly loading different OSs or different versions of the same OS, or capturing screen shots of same like Hot Button. Maybe I'm just not geek enough. That must be why I don't like the oft-used Penguinista response, "If you don't like DistroA, try DistroB, or DistroC, ...", ad infinitum.

Would you care to name that ERP / MRP system? Just wondering.

What Windows apps do you think have descriptive program names?

Excel? I think that's a verb indicating a performance level; nothing to do with numbers.

Powerpoint? A made-up name; maybe the "point" part relates to presentations.

Access? The privilege or ability to gain entry; nothing to do with databases.

FrontPage? Sounds like it should be used for newspaper publishing.

Okay, I grant you Word and Money.

I can agree with you 100% on the "choice is confusing" issue. And I do find sometimes the first answer provided doesn't address my question. But responding negatively to the first answer discourages subsequent readers from attempting to help you. If you don't like the first answer, ignore it and wait for someone else to respond.

When it comes to Linux distros or any software that you want to try out I always use rewritable media. That way I don't throw dozens of disks in the trash. I just reuse them. :D

I am right there with you. In my studio I use alot of Motu and Alesis gear, and they are lame in driver updates for Windows and Mac, much less delving into new areas. I kicked and screamed on it, and the top Dev there told me this:

"We will only explore those options once we receive enough user interest in them."

He proceeded to tell me that if I was wanting to see that come about (Linux drivers for Motu 896HD's) then I had better get as many people as I know to start complaining. The devs in these companies are not unaware of it, but the execs who control the direction are.

And unfortunately, most of the pro-audio market is almost completely sold out to Apple anyways. They only make Windows drivers because there is such a huge m=population of people out there (in there minds) that are not converted over to Mac. It is rediculous though, because from what the Dev told me, the driver's main codebase is the exact same, with some module tweaks for each platform. So the port to a linux driver wouldn'teven be that hard, they just aren't ok'd by team leaders and management to go that way.

So my best guess at this one is to tell you and anyone that reads this, that you need to write or call the software companies to let them know you exist and what you want/need. That is the only way they will get moving in that direction. They cannot sense the irate brainwaves of all of us that want this to happen. I can dream of a Linux box stripped down to bare essentials, with modules for your specific hardware compiled right intothe kernel, and nothing else loaded at all, but your audio drivers and the apps needed. Oh what a pleasure that would be. Nice and streamlined.

I must say, that is one thing that I love linux for. I can strip the machine down to bare essentials to perform a specific task much faster. Currently I use Windows XP x64 edition with 8GB of RAM and a SuperSpeed software's RAMDiskXP64 to record all incoming audio data from Sonar64 to a RAM DISK. It makes applying effects and any mods to the wave, REAL fast, by a few orders of magnitude, no drive bottleneck. Its all moving in RAM and CPU without disk involvement at all.

So at that, does anyone know of any good RamDisk software for Linux? I mean aside from the one that comes with it. I mean a good ramdisk software that is stable with 4+GB Ram Disks?

I tend to explain that making a Linux driver (if their drivers are created correctly) will cost them nothing. It is a simple as modifing one little chunk.

What really makes me mad is when I was a sys admin, companies would provide very little support for Linux systems. We had an issue with a RAID driver (from a vendor that shall not be named, dude...you get it?) that was NEVER resolved. Why sell the hardware if you aren't going to support it?

Oh, I have the answer...to make your money than leave the customer hanging.

It looks like your main point is that free software isn't particularly useful for building a viable business model.

You're both right and wrong. It's not good for building a viable profit model if your aim is to treat software as a product. Free software returns software to its rightful place: a means to an end, and not the end in itself. Free software developers make money by developing functionality that someone wants, and for which that person is willing to pay. Free software experts make money by supporting deployed free software (and by deploying it). Commercial software vendors make money by having the government come around and strongarm you if you happen to use the same install CD twice.

Even if it's more difficult to make money on free software (which, in my experience, it's not), I'd rather do so at great effort than make money with little effort by becoming the software analog to John Gotti.

There is no doubt, as an opeating system, Linux is by far superior: stable, genrally doesn't crash and doesn't require reboots when you change some configuration, install something (yes, XP still requires that, contrary to popular opinion) sneeze or fart. Linux does require the user to use some of that gray matter between ones ears and to learn something new. Windows, on the other hand, frustrates the user by hiding most everyting from the user under multiple layers of GUIs and confusing Help Files.

I remember when an associate asked me to help him. He had about 500 jpeg images that he wanted to reduce in size. Sure, he could have used ACDSee in Windows but he didn't have that program. I offered to do it for him in Linux. About 10 minutes of research using Google showed me that it was an easy job using a built-in bash command(find) and a program that almost all Linux distros install: ImageMagick. A shor time later, I had converted 500 jpeg images to the size he desired. with just a few key strokes.

Want to create a pdf file? Print your file to a Post Script file and convert it to pdf with a built-in function. Very handy if you want to save a web page; print to file (ps) and convert to pdf. Rip CDs to mp3? It's there. Play all video formats, including DVD, VCD, mpeg, avi, mov, rm, etc. MPlayer can do it and better than Windows Media Player, Quick Time and Real Player without all the bloat.

Yes, there are some frustrations in Linux. Most are due to manufacturers that don't relase drivers for Linux. As an example, Canon printers are very difficult to use as all the drivers are for Windows. As a result, I won't buy anything made by Canon. Their loss; Epson and HP printers are generally easy to set up.

When you install Windows, you have an OS but not much else except a few inane games and a really bad web browser and mail client. To do any work, you must buy and install the programs you need. Fortunately, there are some Open Source programs for Windows available but the list is still short. A Linux installation is generally complete, with all the programs that you will ever need and then some. Often, you will have multiple choices of programs. For example, for web browing, typically you would have Firefox, Opera, Konquerer, Nautilus, Links, and Lynx.

Most all of the file formats that are created in windows can be opened or created in Linux, such as .doc, .xls, .pps, etc.

I would never go back to using Windows. But, for those that can't or won't flex a little brain power and expend some effort, and have lots of money, Windows will be there for you as silent testimony of a waste of mind and money.

Don't like vi? Open your WindowsXP command prompt and type in:

edlin

Yes, this dos program is still there. And as user friendly as ever! I remember using it with DOS 3.31 and hating it then, yet it still lives! Had to use it a couple of months ago to fix a XP machine by remote login over the internet.

1) You are just putting people down again with no evidence

2) I and many people don't find Windows Help files confusing

3) There are many "free" .pdf converters for Windows

6) a I meant, and should of said, most used

b Please explain...we have Win 98 thru XP on our network and don't seem to have any compatibility problems. If you are referring to programs running on these platforms, I'll just pull a play out of your playbook and say that is the manufacturer's problem not the OS. The OS was strengthened for additional security which then "broke" the application...which was written poorly to begin with.

c Popularity does justify expense because it is easier and cheaper to buy parts, hire staff, locate consultants, etc. For example, it is much easier and cheaper to have a Ford repaired than a Ferrari, regardless of the costs of parts.

I don't demean anyone for choosing Linux. That's your decision. However, I do fire back when flamed and constantly attacked on here.

I and many other said that what is best is dependent upon what you want it to do. the biggest complaint many Windows lovers make against Linux is that they find them confusing and that is becasue they expect Linux to be the same as Windows, it is not.

Linux and Windows use widely different approaches to the way they do things, they have differnt paradiams (hope I spelt that right), differn world views. Thus when some one who is used to only one tries the other they find it confusing until they get familar with it. try asking a ntive speaking Frenchman how English seems when they try to learn it as an adult; the grammar rules etc are totally different and confusing - until you get used to them.

The complaint about Windows breaking things is due to the way MS works. I want some windows code to make my system compatible with it I have to fork out some money to get access. Then MS finally decide to do something about security holes they have known about for sveral years. As in all things software there are many ways to do it. They choose a way that means all the code etc that I have paid them for no longer works and I have to fork out money for the code to make my software work with their system again, and pay my coders to do more work that should not have needed doing if MS had done their windows right in the first place as they knew about them before they even started on the code for XP.

You're just looking for excuses to be a victim of the Big Bad Linux Users Who Hate You -- aren't you?

1) That's not any kind of put-down at all. If you're reading insult in that, you're the one putting it there. It's not even indirectly a put-down, and it's not elitist. It's a statement about the efficacy of the sort of activities to which one must devote brainpower when working with an operating system that cannot operate effectively without a great deal of resources being blown on security band-aids.

2) I said "solid" basis for comparison. Dabbling for a few hours doesn't even begin to address that. I've skimmed through books in numerous languages in which I am not fluent, and found them all confusing, but that doesn't mean that those languages are in fact any more confusing than, for instance, English. As long as you keep demonstrating a woeful lack of understanding of Linux-based OSes in general, I'll continue to be certain you lack a solid basis for comparison.

3) "[i]There are plenty of free ones and they aren't any more difficult to use, install, etc than Adobe itself.[/i]" Wonderful. I'm happy for you. That has nothing to do with limited functionality.

6)

b. This was already addressed in a response involving the words "horses for courses part deux" by Deadly Ernest, and admirably well. I'll let that one stand on its own. By the way, Ernest, if you read this -- the word you were looking for is "paradigm".

c. There's a huge difference between a patch and having to recover from catastrophic system failure. Get a clue.

Funny, I must completely agree with your points. I am not saying that you must mercilessly hunt down and prosecute license violations. I am not in that software design camp. My main thrust is putting together a whole business model in the form of software. I use the software to reach performance and functionality goals, and not for a cut and dry saleable product that I enforce licensing restrictions on.

In my position, yes, it would be much easier to use free software and make alot of money from the support issues that arise when you combine multiple systems written by different people, in an attempt to create a unified system. That is where opensource always loses it for me. I don't follow a standard software design model, I document and flowchart like all good programmers, but it is the wisdom that I use in designing a solution that requires me to engineer everything to fit in my picture.

I can't play paint by numbers and use cookie cutter generic GNU software to get the job done. In most cases, there is just nothing out there that does the task in a way that will combine with other areas to create as little need for employees as possible. That is unless you know where I can get some really good robotic control software for Linux or BSD that is open source. Even if there is, I would spend more time in trying to make the many programs play nicely, than I would just by designing something from the ground up, to work together.

The exception to this rule that I have employed a couple of times is shopping cart software. I have used a couple of different shopping cart softs at times to give the web front end to a e-commerce package, since many are generally extensible from APIs or by directly accessing the cart system's DBs.

At no point in time do I turn ownership of the software over to the person who is using it, rather, they are paying for a service that manages thier entire business for them, and allows them to do most tasks and get any information with 1-3 clicks, as well as real-time stats. Real-time db push apps and all forms of real-time alerts and monitoring are very hard to come by in open source software. We're talking:

Accounting
Shipping & Receiving
Video & Audio Streaming
Robotics
Biometric Access
Process Controls (pressure/temp/weight/speed)
Human Resources (employee attenadance, job site management)
RFID Personel Tracking
RFID Product Inventorying
Server Monitoring
Software Stability Monitoring & Reporting

They also get SLAs on uptime, and performance gaurantees, etc.

So yes, I am firmly against the schlepping software model of doing things. I would rather concentrate on a service revenue model, but I make a great distinction between "Rental Revenue" and "Service Revenue". For me the Service Revenue is all rolled up in the cost of the software lease. That also keeps the customers out of your hair on the technical side. They are relegated to a zone that allows them to request features but they are not in a position to start directing the inner workings of the system, which leaves me free to enjoy what I do and work my mojo on the keyboard without some clueless middle manager telling me how to comment my code.

I think there is also a good business model in being a software architect where someone contracts you to build a piece of software, and they retain ownership. Its no different to building a house. You would rarely find a man doing it on his own, and buying the parts at Home Depot. You get an expert in to do it. That type of work is fun for a while, but I have found that by finding some niche and doing it better than anyone else, you spend almost all of your work time improving the one product, rather than going out on service calls and reacquainting yourself with some code you wrote 2 yeras earlier.

I think I must work on getting proficient in GUI apps for KDE. That could make my products a whole lot more appealing to the open source OS crowds. I have had requests of that nature, but couldn't justify the learning curve time. Apotheon, you know any good beginner tutorials for doing GUI apps in KDE? Without venturing to Java for it. S'pose Java may be a good way to go for that, I just don't like Sun. I used Kylix for a while, and made some good apps, but it has not worked since like Redhat 7.2 or so without a whole lot of pains in the arse getting a compatibility environment setup for an older version of GLIBC.

Ok, enough time wasting here now, let me get to sleep. Let me end by saying that I agree with most of what apotheon says except I would likely not be so belligerant in it, and I am not yet entirely sold out to the notion that the only useable OS is Linux (not that you directly said that anywhere), just broad-brushing. There is plenty of ROI to be had anywhere you have experience and expertise.

Thank you for that link. It is very helpful for me regarding what Linux OS I want to use. I am new to the field of programming etc, as currently I know enough to be dangerous but not enough to be called an expert. And only 6 months into my degree in CIS. This is also a research assignment for my current CIS class. I was very concerned with being able to find a Linux that even my children can use at home. We have all Windows and want exposure to the Linux side as well. So as an "Average" user, So far, I like what I see in Linspire. The biggest concern I have is compatability to my MMORPG games and my many other games we play as a family on the PC. Can anyone provide a link for me to help me solve this dilemma? Thank you.

I agree. I want a computer with a Linux OS, and went to buy one from Dell or Alienware and it added cost to my purchase in order to get the Linux OS instead of the Microsoft OS.

I'm trying to do just that, I have a computer that I built myself, with SATA. I have one standard hard drive, 60GB and one SATA Hardrive, 160 GB. I tried formating it but for some reason, even after making my 60GB with windows on it, the secondary and the SATA the primary, it tells me there is no OS on it, when I try to install SuSE 9.1 on it, I get a no signal error message and cant figure out the issue, I know its operator head space, so as a temp fix, I bought a 200 GB Western Hard drive with the old standard hook up on it, and when I tried making it the primary, including removing the Windows XP hard drive, it would not let me format it, so I am assuming that as it came with no boot disk, I may need to adjust my BIOS so that it reads off the CD-ROM first or will have to create a floppy boot so I can format my Western Digital. I only have a floppy because of my kids, otherwise I prefer CD-RW for saving my data. I just havent done anything with it because of my homework load in the past 2 weeks. And any help you can give me is appreciated since Im a n00b at programming and right now the only language I know is HTML.

While I admit, I have YET to use Linux, which I am endeavoring to try, I have 2.7 GHZ Processor on PC that I built, and I have 1.5 GB of SDRAM that I installed. I only have one working hard drive of 60GB, But every time I restart my PC, with the Windows XP Pro installed, I have to turn off a LOT of programs I have no need of or use for that Windows automatically starts. I tried turning a majority of them off, from the startup, but not all of them were able to be turned off. They automatically start everytime I turn on my PC, and that is so annoying.

I dont think that is the point of the multiple OS installs. A lot of us that are learning to write programs have to learn in multiple languages and OS systems. The only way to do so, is to understand the current programs and systems as well as the legend programs. For certain certifications this is a requirement as well, or your not going to understand the first thing about that program your currently using or trying to write. Developers and Programmers need to know all of the OS systems available because they need to be able to give educated recommendations, and what better way to do so, then by using your own experiences as a learning tool? Also, if you dont use it, you lose it. And if you work in an environment that you have to support different systems or learn to improve on them, you need all the resources you can get your hands on. If you run a home based business as say a consultant or a tech support for any given company, you will need the software to walk the "Average" user thru the process of fixing it. And please, give me someone who speaks english. I spent 20 mins on the phone with a windows tech support specialist who didnt speak english very well and I wound up hanging up and calling over and over again till I got someone who I could understand over the phone.

Start, Run, msconfig.exe. Go to the last tab and check the list of executables that are launched at startup. If the program isn't immediately obvious, search for the executable; usually the directory it's in will give you a pretty good idea what it is. Turn things off ONE AT A TIME and then reboot. You'll get a warning after rebooting that you're using a modified startup. Keep trying items until you find the unwanted ones. Once they're all turned off, tell the warning to go away.

"Corporate environments typically have time to train, get support, tweak, whatever.
"

Can I work in your IT department???

I would love to have time to train, get support etc... The fact is, the business world can be far more demanding that the average home user. just my opinion.

good Question,
You are right, you don't need a license for linux since you can download it for free from most providers except for Novell and some newer Version of Redhat,,,but debian and Slackware are free....support is on your own unless you buy a licecnsed copy....So the anwser your looking for is YES you can...Dell needs to get a clue. Just buy the system and tell them you dont want OS...they tried that when we asked for a quote for new servers

I think TR owes me...my Linux debate is now closing in on 500 posts total with no signs of slowing down.

Perhaps the next room will debate abortion, religion, or similar...joking.

The same sort of caveats apply here as with msconfig, of course: it's not a panacea, just something that helps.

I think the biggest problem with windows is the lack of quality. I mean M$ needs not to put any effort into the OS because of it's dominance. They lack passion.

For example, take a look at the console wars. PS2 kicked Xbox's arse. I mean it had greater game library and better appeal to the markets. While the "Playstation Online" thing didn't really kick off and the HDD was a waste, it still was a gigatic wall that M$ had no business tackling.

Now look at the Xbox 360. They KNOW they have to compete now, so what did they do make a more stylish competitive product. The Xbox 360 still is no match for what is presumed to be the Ps3 (albeit we don't know for sure), but M$ was forced to compete.

So I say Sony should develope an OS for the PC, sure it doesn't have to be uber revolutionary, but if it had the style of say a shirow Masamune GUI, or for anyone who doesn't know who that is, something from I-robot? Sony would give M$ some competition, and MAYBE force their lazy uninspired arse to make something worth a damn, but I'm sure they will stick with their Pay for every little thing along the way.

How about IBM?

They could bring together open source and propietary systems like no other. And have the name, resource, background, resource, money...long list.

But they aren't concerned right now with tangible products...to concerned with services. And what they do have is under used and too expensive.

For common people viz home users, the first thing they want is the easy handling i.e user it should be user friendly and second it should be free.
For them the technical difference is non of their
concern.
That's what windows provide to it users.A easy to use GUI.

OK, read this, 'cause I'm not going to waste any more time on you.
You clearly have absolutely no knowledge about what you are talking about. I wonder if you even know something about Windows, even if you have 25 experience in IT. Don't know how that can happen, I have 35 years in IT, and I have firsthand experience Windows from 1987 and up, all IBM from s/34 to z-Series, Linux, Unix OS/2 and a few I don't care to mention.

Windows is not on 90% of desktops because it is good. Windows is on 90% of desktops because Microsoft used harsh tactics and draconian measures on PC suppliers, going to the point of refusing to deliver Windows at all, if they sold the HW without Windows, with another OS alongside Windows, or even distributing th PC with no OS at all. I have paid Microsoft for the OS I stripped off the machine the moment it was switched on, with a bootable Linux install CD mounted. This practise is not paying for a product, it is tax - or in another trade named 'protection'.

Notepad and Vi and a host of other text editors - f.instance Windows Registry Editor, are utilities for people needing quick text entry - like on a Notepad.

Windows has a string of proprietary applications written by Microsoft, and some from companies they haven't bought and closed down yet.

Linux has an endless string af applications from a multitude of suppliers. Some you pay for, some are free. Some are very good, some are not - exactly as it is in any other market where competition exists.

Most people install Windows from a preloaded PC with all relevant drivers and settings already loaded. It takes about an hour if it recognises your HW, days if it doesn't.

Linux is installed from a CD or the net, and no preinstalled exists - see above chapter. Nevertheless Linux install is _easier_ and takes less time, as the normal install time of about an hour - same as Windows, includes several browsers, several MM programs, a complete Office Suite, an email client/calendering program that sends Outlook into the canvas for counting out immediately, firewall, and tons of other stuff. Things you have to add after installing Windows. And after install you have to go to MS update and download about 64MB of fixes. An unfixed XP survivies unharmed on the net about 5 minutes, much shorter time than it takes to download the fixes. I can prove it, it happened to my daughters PC.

If you had tried Linux - and not stopped saying that it doesn't work the moment you discovered there was no C: drive, you would have realised that everything you say is wrong.

My mother uses firefox and IRC chat and she also
may be the exception to the rule...

I have been doing UNIX since 1977. She cut her teeth on a SCO Xenix on a 386/25...

It isn't completely difficult if you set up menu's for the ignorant. (My six year old plays hangman, Urogue, etc on the previously mentioned Xenix box. Everex Step/25.. )

It takes people being willing to read...

Tim

But I have a 20 year old son who could install and used word perfect on a Xenix box for all of his grade school through college papers...

He bought a 2.8 GZ Dell, and has loaded redhat 9.0 on it...

I guess you are IX illiterate... or prejudiced...

I am a tech. I have been using Linux to run my business since 1998. I have introduced quite a number of people to Linux over the last 4 years or so since it became useable for the average granny.

My preferences for a new user are Mepis and Xandros in that order. Mepis, because it installs just about everything the average person needs, with a couple of exceptions that are really not beginner software anyway.

The one big issue I have with it is that if someone tries to print to a printer that is turned off, they need the root password to turn it back on.

Other than that, the only things that don;t work are a few of the later Windows video codecs, and webcams on yahoo, MSN etc, the novelty of which wears off after a while for most people anyway.

I have only been a tech/programmer for 28 years. I support all Windows versions, and a number of Linux distros. Personally I use Knoppix, SuSe and fedora on some of my own machines as well as checking others, but my day to day stuff is on Mepis.

I almost never use command line. I had enough of that in my Unix and DOS days.

I like the computer to just work. I don;t want to be reloading systems all the time, and I certainly don;t want to come back here and troubleshoot after doing it "out there" all day. I must admit I use apt-get at the command line because I am too lazy to open synaptic, but day to day, I use the GUI for everything.

That said, guess where my support calls come from? Linux users phone me because the printer won;t work. We restart the printer over the phone a few times and they get the message. Other than that, I rarely hear from a Linux customer unless they are thinking of buying a new printer. I tell ALL my linux customers to call me first, and I usually suggest a HP, simply because even the cheapest HP will almost always work with any Linux system.

Windows users call me regularly with anything from "I can;t get the modem to work again" to The computer is getting slower again" to "I think I have a virus again".

Do I think everyone should use Linux? No. Windows has a hell of a lot going for it:

Its multimedia capabilities are still far ahead of Linux.

There is still a lot more commercial software available for it. People usually prefer to spend a few thousand dollars of software for there new computer, than use free stuff.

Mostly however, if more people used Linux, there would be far less work for people like me. Most regularly used Windows computers need to be completely wiped and reinstalled every six months. You always know when, by the frequency of the "my computer keeps crashing/my computer is slow" calls.

Without this problem, a hell of a lot of hardware techs would be out of a job.
RossDV8

What orginal thought does Linux have? It is a "ripoff" of Unix and some distros are ripoffs of Windows.

I didn't start off to validate myself. I started off with an open mind and still do. I'm still playing around with Linux in order to learn it and understand it.

However, since the ratio of Linux suppporters to Windows supporters here is about 10 to 1 or even worse, I am finding myself in the rare (yes rare since the ratio of Windows users to Linux users in the world is probably the reverse 10 to 1 or more) position of defending Windows.

I recognize the inherent weaknesses of all OS's. I am merely defending Windows more here since no one else is.

If the ratio was more 50/50, maybe my comments wouldn't have to be so Windows tilted.

Out of my ignorance concerning Wine or Cedega, are they slower? Even a fraction of a second? Surely there is some overhead.

I ask because I play alot of games on-line. In America's Army for example, even a fraction of a second delay, whether it be the PC, the intenet connection, or whatever, and I'm dead. I now have a disadvantage that others will exploit.

I have noticed even a 50 millisecond lag makes a world of a difference compared to a 10 millisecond lag.

How does Wine or Cedega or whatever compare to running the application natively the way it was designed to be run?

And actually, America's Army is just an example and probably a bad one. They have a version out for Linux which is a good thing. But not all games will run natively on Linux.

Wine actually started as an acronym: Wine Is Not an Emulator. Believe it or not, that's true.

Wine is in fact a library, or set of libraries, that provide an API similar to that of Windows. It's similar to simply having Windows DLLs and the like sitting around on your machine, ready to be used by Windows programs. It is a very nearly native Windows environment within Linux.

Theoretically, Windows software should run every bit as quickly on Linux with Wine as it does on Windows. In practice, of course, it varies. Some things (including some games) are reported to run faster on Linux with Wine, and some (including some other games) to run more slowly. I'm afraid I cannot comment very authoritatively on which programs fall into which categories, or the whys and wherefores, as I haven't made much use of Wine.

Cedega is, in short, Wine with an interface that can ease the process of using it a bit and with a few licensed additions to provide additional compatibility and functionality. My understanding, though I have not used it, is that it makes some things easier, makes a few things possible that Wine alone can't do yet, and generally doesn't impose a noticeable performance hit for it.

Hopefully that's of some use in answering your question.

"[i]You used 'ripoff' when it comes to Windows but now it is 'reimplimentation' when it comes to Linux.[/i]"
See above, regarding credit being given where it's due.

"[i]My 'reasonable-seeming' replies aren't in there for 'spice', they are in there for whom people I see common ground with.[/i]"
Ah, so the truth comes out. You only give reasonable replies to people who agree with you. Duly noted.

"[i]Never once did I mention or accept 'security through obsurity' as a principle[/i]"
Liar. You used arguments to the effect that Windows is only more exploited because it's more widely used, thus attributing security through obscurity to Linux, by contrast.

"[i]Perhaps YOU aren't as technically astute as you would have others to believe.[/i]"
Perhaps I'm not, but you've provided no evidence to support that statement, so I'll just discard it.

Regarding what you refer to as post number 12:

I wasn't even addressing you. Get a grip, man, and stop looking for reasons to be offended. Nobody likes a habitual play-victim.

I once installed Win/XP pro on a bare machine, a pain simple IBM desktop. Not the preinstalled stuff some highly trained specialist made for you, and where you just say Yes to the EULA (without reading that by doing so you give Microsoft full control over the box, and that they may install or uninstall anything they want- read it!).

Some time into the installation I got the pop-up that it was unable to find the driver for my netcard, and suggested that I got an updated driver from - guess where ? The internet......

We accepted the errors, and in the end we had an IBM desktop running VGA 16 colors 640 by 480 resolution, with no network. Just out of curiosity we cleared the disks (low level format) and tried to install SUSE 9.1 on it, and I am sorry to say that it went without a hitch.

Forget about this FUD about Linux not being mature. I know firsthand of people stating that their Linux installation didn't work, because there was no C: drive, and the programsfolder was missing. Just like stating that you Diesel engine won't run because the ingnition system is missing.

rgds
Peter

If you look for supported hardware and configure your machine accordingly you shouldn't have a problem. Most recently ther problems I ran into were SATA drives and new video cards that weren't in the primary distribution.

The basic stuff you get on servers tends to be much better supported. (You don't need a high end graphics card to be a console.)

The newest hardware is often three-six months behind getting working drivers for the UNIX environment. Many of us who write the drivers are doing it in our copious free time. My wife and 4 kids lay claim to much of that. The good old SCSI hard drives,EIDE or ESDI seem to work fine. Use a 16 MB video card and they are basically all supported. Buy a 256MB G-Force that was released last friday, and it may not be supported for a while...

For a while SATA nada... Now I hava a SATA raid.

Try getting Microsoft to fix a very real problem. Even if they promise a delivery date. Can someone say Longhorn and filesystem in the same sentance
without using the words slip and delayed or rescheduled?

The real issue has become one that people will not be sneering at. The complexity of UNIX that people complain about hasn't stopped Apple from becoming UNIXfied. In fact people tend to use GUIs, Word Processors, and lastly editors. If you have that functionality, then there is no great difference for what you need to do.

The fact is with MS you have only one possible solution at the new OS level. You can be run around long enough that your company can be destroyed by their responsiveness.

I have been doing UNIX since 1977. I'd be happy to pay for it, as well as use it.

I have been using UNIX/XENIX/LINUX and have bought it when it was $7995.00 to run it on a 386
25 MZ with the number of users to connect to it.

Why? because It needed to work. MS at the time wasn't a viable Business system. Xenix was a better solution. PCs were 3,000 and a dumb terminal was $400.00. Serial lines to 32 terminals was relatively cheap. 32 copys of Word Perfect (long before MS WORD) would have been 16,000.00 itself. I was able to automate Law firms for 1/4 the cost of PC only solutions. The Word Perfect was better too! (Not just my opinion the early win 3.1 WP wasn't great.)

I can still put 100 users on a Linux box for so much less than a comparable Windows server it isn't the same. If they don't mind following written directions my job is easier. But it only takes me sconds to export a filesystem or part of it and mount it somewhere else. (eliminates the file server issue)

I can crossmount drives using automount, or rsh
to mount a drive across a network faster than you can bring up a network neighborhood window and drill down one level on a 300 MS SERVER 300 UNIX server hybrid network. BTW CIFS works fine...

I understand what adduser means...

If you want security Go home to C2 servers and that means UNIX or LINUX.

Then the top word processor would still be Word Perfect. We would use Dan Bricklin's spreadsheet, and Brief or multi-edit would still be the editor of choice for PC developers.

Microsoft did give deliberately wrong information to companies who were their competitors. (FRAUD)
They were fined 6 million dollars by a judge in their own state.

They basically defrauded and destroyed companies who competed against their Excel and Word products illegally.

However, they gave correct information to their own staffs (Create unfair advantage).

A fair Judge would have fined them the value of their profits (At the time billions) and filed an injunction from selling the products. MS themselves at the same timeframe filed injunctions against SCO for a spreadsheet that was better than Excel at the time because SCO was the only vendor with a solution in that envioronment. Unfortunately SCO caved...

Cunning and Criminal maybe.

Wireless ethernet was so much easier on my notebook in windows. I actually had to load a CD, reboot, power off, put the hardware in a mini PCI slot, restart, and then work to configure it and the security for it to work on a wireless network.

For the Linux Disktop, I loaded the system. Oh crap the wireless card was identified and it worked as soon as i put in the string for security. Poor comparison. The OpenOfice doesn't crap out like my Office 2003 Outlook does.

I guess there are comparisons. I didn't pay $499.00 for open office. and OpenOffice doesn't lock up, or hang while communicating with the outlook server.

The real difference is that many people won't, or can't read. They can only work with a pretty picture to go with an application(icon). Oh you can get that also on Linux KDE, Gnome, etc. For me Linux is cheaper and more stable. But, I run a network of 300 Unix servers.

Most larger Corps Use A UNIX, or a Mainframe Whether it be HPUX 11i or Solaris for their ERP systems, Or other. The issue becomes that a Windows Model for older Legacy systems didn't make any sense. Until fairly recently, Windows systems were limited to 2 GB per drive letter for many applications. Larger Unix/Oracle systems have multi-TB databases that SQLSERVER Couldn't hack, and it's Parent Product SYBASE couldn't recover from a network interruption without DB reload.

The Big Cost in Linux systems is the Hardware. If you use the MS logic and put it on an Irish Business Mainframe with 100 CPUs that cost a Mill and a half, Of course you see a lower acquisition cost for a non-clustered environment.

If you use identical hardware, the pay back time only exists if you have a staff that can't help but choke over the letters IX. The training for seven years of staff training, I saw in one study compared to 0 dollars of additional cost for Windows. They assume you will get training on their products anyway.

You may find that by adjusting the kernel parameters you may be able to speed up the box considerably...

Tim

Not that I am a M$ basher but your sarcasm is dead on!

You aren't exactly using an emulator, you are using a series of APIs and calls to make it seem as though you are on a Windows box.

Most games run about the same as they do in Windows, with 2 exceptions:
1) World of Warcraft actually runs better in Linux than in Windows. I have my theories as to why, but needless to say I get about 5-10 more FPS out of WoW in Linux. Sure Ironforge/Orgrimmar are still laggy as all get out, but that is more a function of bandwidth and server load.

2) Half-Life 2: Can sometimes drop frames. I'm not sure what the deal is, but I'll jump on the blame steam bandwagon ;-)

Other games run about the same....However, due to some copy protection issues, some games have trouble installing or playing...You'll have to check the wiki or gamesdb for that information.

WINE, GNU, etc.

It's all those damn negatively-defined recursive acronyms!!! :-D

I like what you wrote. Not that I'd agree with it, but I like it.

What you said about too many distros out there. What you failed to recognize is THAT is one of the things that makes LINUX so...special (for lack of a better term). I mean, you state that "free thinkers...should not use Windows" and I agree, however, not everyone wants to drive a Chrysler Minivan all the time. Sure, nice when it is needed, but what about when you want a Mustang or PT Cruiser? You really can look at this from a similar standpoint. What makes LINUX so facinating is the fact that you really CAN make it to be whatever you want or need. There is a few people that keep the actual kernel up to date (that is why there are updates and such). Those people are upgrading the engine, so to speak. Your anxiety is over the body: the paint job, the stereo, the seats and such.

Another thing: about the 98% out there. Where MS was really smart was making their deal with IBM. Once Windows was on nearly every desktop, they had it made. Their indoctrinization was complete and they had us all where they wanted us. I can almost garuntee that, if you take someone with NO experience (I know, good luck today, right?) and sit them in front of a LINUX BOX or MAC, they will learn to use it just like we all did several years ago with Windows.

I still stand by my claim when I say that the real problem with LINUX is the Software Developers. You cannot tell me that if they were to spend more time, and a little more effort, they could not develop more software to sell on other systems. Games, your Web Development software, all those daily programs we all use could have been written to work on MAC, they could have been written to work on LINUX/UNIX. My biggest example? Take Unreal Tournament 2004. What were the OS requirements? Windows or LINUX. There was even one written specifically for MAC! A little more effort on the part of Programmers and they could sell more copies and the war for the desktop could be a little more even. MS's hold on the desktop is just that: they have the Software developers on their side and on their payroll. Personally, I beleive MS would loose this debate in a heart beat if all the software companies would include the same option that the makers of Unreal did.

"That's [my] opinion, [I]'d like to hear yours."

The Old Ones used self referencing acronyms. That is why we had to kill them!!!

But Christine. It's really me.

No Roger. You are not the man that I loved.

Christine. I can prove it's me in this shell. Ask me to calculate any ... Um. ...

(I forget the rest of it.)

For loops of less than 400,000 Wine is 17% faster on Wine than Windows.

For Malloc of 200 MB it is 35% faster

For Disk write it is apparently slower by .3 seconds for a 2GB file. For reading the 2 GB file it is 43% faster. (FILESYSTEM difference)

That is just barebones difference with 8GB RAM
3.2 GZ P4 800 MZ FSB.

My hard drives are SCSI RAID 1 (Adaptec) with 200 GB mirrored drives.

I did all this on my local drives because I know the windows Powerpath is poor compared to Linux/Unix Powerpath.

As far as I can tell where there are lag is when other than console activity is happening. If you want true RT use QNX.

Linux isn't a RTOS. It is fast, but QNX is faster.

Tim

I'll take your word for the comparison since I wasn't there to see it, however, I'd like the same test done on "regular old equipment".

That is, your PC seems to be on steriods compared to the average, everyday PC. The "normal" PC is more like a Pentium IV 2.8 Ghz, 256-512MB RAM, no SCSI, no RAID, maybe a 500mhz front side bus, and run the test using software people are more likely to use such as Office, a few video games like Doom or such, etc.

Not sure if it will change the results or not, but it would be not only interesting to compare but also more "real".

Lastly, many Linux users lovely to claim its performance on older PC's like 400-600Mhz. Try that.

Grant it, I seriously doubt you have the equipment, time or software, but all of this would be a truer test.

People mention that one of Linux's great strengths is the options you have ( Same goes for Java). For example, several readers have mentioned different version implying they are better then the others etc, etc. For skilled enthusiasts like ourselves that is a good thing, but is it really a plus in the real, working world(where companies our trying to make money somehow)?

I'd be the first too admit that Windows cost more up front, and Linux on the low end, with PHP, MySql, Apache, ect is very appealing, but Windows starts to make more sense with larger corporations, where its integration of Sharepoint, Office, and .NET can be extremely powerful.

Walmart was selling a Linux computer at one time for $199 Also you can buy linux system from Hewlett Packard. Probably are hundreds of OEM builders that will sell without an OS on the hard drive.

That's not any kind of good argument. "Oh, I assume you don't use it, so you can't possibly know what I mean, which means I can safely make my point by saying if you used it you'd understand." Great. Lovely. Wonderful. Now give me some kind of technical argument.

You imply that my argument has no meaning, but I didn't make an argument. I asked for someone to say something meaningful rather than parroting advertising literature. Vacuous statements like "This vertically integrated vendor lock-in stack is powerful!" don't mean squat where the rubber meets the road (so to speak).

I have indeed used Office and .NET, and while I have not used SharePoint Services, I have researched it to some extent. Guess what: these things don't really do anything special.

I have a fair amount of distaste for corporations like Microsoft that engage in anticompetitive business practices, but I don't let that affect my opinion of the technical merits of what they sell. Unlike some people who seem unable to separate the technical characteristics of something from personal or ethical issues with its vendor, I am fully capable of realizing that Microsoft being an organization worth boycotting doesn't make the .NET framework any less useful for developers. Of course, you can get the same thing with Mono, the open source implementation of the .NET framework develpment tools, which runs on other platforms than Windows.

I know what "powerful" means. I don't see how it particularly applies here. For something to be "powerful", it must compare favorably with something else that is not "powerful", and there has to be some definable characteristic that grants it this "power" of which it is "full". I could say that the GPL is "powerful", but without explaining that I mean it is socially influential, that doesn't mean jack to someone that doesn't already know what I mean. I could say that Vim is "powerful", but without explaining that I'm talking about its ability to enable increased productivity as opposed to, for instance, the ability to display italics, you probably wouldn't agree with me (since you seem to be a fan of MS Office). Can it get any clearer than that? Don't be a condescending jackass about something just because you want to disagree and have some kind of emotional investment in believing that vertically integrated Microsoft stacks are somehow intrinsically wonderful.

I wasn't looking to argue that Linux is better with that: I just wanted some clarification about what the hell the previous poster could have meant. Don't put arguments in my mouth. Get a clue.

fair enough.