Linux

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Windows vs Linux

0 helpful
399 replies

by rkuhn040172 1 view

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Ok, these discussions are out of hand.

Anytime there is a discussion of Linux vs Windows, without laying down some background, it is almost impossible to have a meaningful discussion.

For example, there are substantial differences between rolling out Linux in a business environment vs rolling it out to a home user with minimal PC skills vs rolling it out to an experienced IT home user.

I'll start 3 threads to reflect this and let me hear the arguments.

For example, for a inexperienced home user, I don't want to hear about "cheap" printers when it comes to drivers. Let's face it, home users buy cheap printers...that's a fact of life.

Conversely, in a business environment, you do have time, money, etc for a roll out whereas in a home environment, you don't.

Let's agree to some variables. Corporate environments typically have time to train, get support, tweak, whatever.

Home users typically just want things to work, buy cheaper and more generic components, etc.

Let's hear your opinions now...

399 replies

by ijusth1

I don't want to hijack this thread but I was hoping that this would be a good forum to ask this:

clear something up on the Linux versus Windows issue please. Can't you buy a workstation without ANY OS at all and essentially have it with Linux and thus not need to pay for the XP license? I was told by Dell that you had to buy a license and I thought that this was what the lawsuits were all about.

by jaqui

The real reason that Dell requires you to buy a windows license is that if they sell a computer without one, they lose the cheap price they pay for windows.

This is a technique that MS has been using since win95 came out, to try to create the monopoly that is illegal.

by roy.maines

The main reason that MS is on over 90% of the desktops is because it is simple to use. One could argue that Mac is better, but that is a whole nuther story. Linux is an excellent OS, reliable, fairly secure, but how many people know how to edit a file in VI? Come on! You need a freakin Masters in Comp Sci to know how to cut and paste in VI. Ever wonder why they put arrows on the blinker of a car to indicate left and right vs h and l? I have over 25 years experience in IT and know both environments fairly well - they each have their place but Linux cross to bear is that it is just to complex for average users.

by fritz_monroe

Dell sells the n-Series that comes with FreeDOS installed. I don't know if there's a MicroSoft charge in there somewhere. You can see these models here: http://www1.us.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/e510_nseries?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs

I've seen several times when Dell has started selling computers without Windows only to stop again a couple months later. This is a bit different in that those other times, it was a Linux distro that was loaded, this time it's a non-windowing OS that's on there.

by deadly ernest

Some years back Dell gave buyers here in Australia a choice of having your computer supplied with Windows or Linux installed - the price was exactly the same regardless of which you chose. All that was different was which system was up and running at the time of purchase and the package included two Recovery discs - one Windows and one Linux and the Windows one had a MS licence number on it. Investigations showed that you were still paying for and getting a Windows licence with the system, they just added the Linux one for free and loaded the Linux system if that was what you requested.

If they had been offering a true option you clients should have been able to buy the Linux options for about A$500 less.

by qtozz-org

You can choose a Dell n-Series (E510) with FreeDos for $ 749,oo and same model E510 with Windows XP Media Center Edition for $ 739,oo. Only $ 20 difference. Remember FreeDos is not installed and there is no support from Dell while Windows is installed and have Dell support.

by cgbullock

We are an HP exclusive shop and HP does sell workstations with Linux (Mandriva.) The problem is that most larger computer companies have deals with Microsoft that they pay Microsoft per processor sold, meaning that the same computer with Linux, which by the way was not installed just the CD was sent, is the same price as the Windows pc. So what we do is put linux on a MS licensed machine, that way if we ever recycle the machine we already have a legal license for Windows.
Chris

by linuxinlibraries.com

I have purchased several machines from a local vendor without an OS. I think the big companies like Dell/Gateway/Compaq have binding contracts that require they sell machines with the Windows XP OS.

by guitardave8077

You can find all kinds of new and refurb hardware for cheap on the internet ..... amazingly a good machine without an os is only a couple hundred bucks....

Dell and Gateway are obligated by way of contract to sell their systems complete with WIndows OS ... otherwise they wouldn't be able to sell them at as low of a price as they do (which is still to high in a lot of cases)....have you tried to buy a new machine with XP Pro vs XP Home? the price difference is astounding!

I have bought several new boxes sans OS and installed Red Hat Fedora on them... the OS is compatible with every piece of hardware I have ever run on it....

by lalala

that's probably dell's policy, but you don't have to buy a dell or the MS license. you can build your own PC and load linux yourself. lots of vendors who will sell you a "barebones" pc that you can customize to your budget and HW needs.

by quaziphoto

I have bought two systems via ebay from DFS and both were great P4's with no OS. The link for their store is http://stores.ebay.com/Dell-Financial-Services
Both systems were nearly 2 GHz and one had a burner, the other I added burner for $39 US. One runs SUSE and I am setting up Ubuntu and a wireless for card in a spare room for my wife. Just trying to learn Linux and related software.

by chinmoy1955

In our country (India), we have a lot of options for buying pc's. Most people prefer assemblers, who are a dime a dozen, who would gladly assemble a system for you for peanuts, and later it is up to you what OS you want to load in your system! It is always a problem with branded PC's, for obvious reasons.
By the way, I have been a follower of Linux for the last six-seven years, subscribing to Linux magazines, visiting forums and what not, but I still use Windows !! Funny? The only, and most important, hitch I have faced in Linux is the installation. Before I embark on an installation, I have the hidden fear of facing failure, and unfortunately, my fears do come true. I have tried fresh installation of various distributions, including Ubuntu, but always something goes wrong during the installation, and I am left with a truncated installation which may or may not work. Windows installations almost always work on first shot. I am fed up, but still a Linux fan!!

by chief makota

If Linux was a country it would be called Iraq! There is so much anarchy in the country of Linux. There is a lot of disorder and confusion!No change control. No version control. No recognised certification. No formal institutional training. Nothing! Linux enthusiastic geeks are like the US Army trying to bring sanity to Baghdad! And there efforts are as usual, futile! No offence to all the linux fans out there! I have used Ubuntu and I think the graphics are cool, but still it falls short on many aspects. Can someone out there sort out the governance of linux at least. Right now its like a 'free for all brawl in a karaoke bar' - no winners all losers!

by sudhindrashamanna

I think there is one more clarification required here. Are we talking about desktop OS or a server OS. Most of the discussions I have read on this topic always assume that we are talking about desktop OS. Looking at the options here it appears you are also talking about desktops. Am I right?

by issinho

I have been reading some articles on Linux for a school project. They all seem to agree that Linux has won the Server wars. I'm not saying that one is better than the other, just that my research points to Linux over Windows in the server arena.

However, the Desktop is another story. Windows has held the monopoly on Desktops for a long time. So, that is where most of the arguments and issues reside today.

by netgenner

If I have to read one more windows vs. linux debate I think I'll take up knitting instead of computers. To me, you may as well ask, "Which is better, apples or oranges?".

by bill

to generate categories - helps users to identify where and when they will use either OS. Both have merit.

by linuxinlibraries.com

What's the point of replying if you are sick of it?

If I have to read one more windows vs. linux debate I think I'll take up knitting instead of computers. To me, you may as well ask, "Which is better, apples or oranges?".

by lalala

they're preloaded with lots of vitamins, they grow everywhere, there's no rind to peel before you get to the fruit, and you can make them do cool stuff like turn into pies and cider. i think they're cheaper by the pound, too.

by fritz_monroe

I agree fully. I'm tired of the discussion as well, but not because anything is ever straightened out, but more for the people doing the arguing won't admit there is anything wrong with their OS of choice.

There seem to be less die hard Windows people, but the ones that are here need to admit that Linux is the right OS for some people and the 2 can coexist on the same network. Linux does have it's uses.

The die hard Linux folks need to admit that Linux is not the answer to every problem. It is not perfect and there are parts that need to be worked on.

If each side could get over themselves and their preconceived notions, a meaningful discussion could occur.

by apotheon

"[i]The die hard Linux folks need to admit that Linux is not the answer to every problem. It is not perfect and there are parts that need to be worked on.[/i]"

I agree with this statement about Linux (not necessarily Linux users -- most aren't as bad as you seem to think). The problem that often arises is that MS FUD indoctrinated Microsofties have a tendency to attack Linux on fronts where Linux actually does [b]not[/b] really have any problems. The sad fact is that they simply don't know enough about Linux to know where its weaknesses actually lie. As a result, Linux users have a tendency to appear to be unable to admit to any faults to Linux because, simply put, what is being touted as areas where Linux falls short of Windows is usually entirely inaccurate.

by bank_it_guy

I thought I owed it to my employer to at least do some due diligence and check out the potential savings of not having to send shovels full of money to Redmond every 2 or 3 years. If the business could save money, I would be the hero, right? Well it didn't work out that way.

First, I knew very little about Linux so I looked at the training alternatives and I felt that a 1 week Linux boot camp was the fastest way to get up to speed. I had to make a decision fast because we needed to upgrade. (hindsight 20/20, fast decisions don't usually work out)

In building a test environment, everything looked pretty good, but I found out quickly that a vendor that wrote their application on Microsoft SQL would not support a Linux SQL application.

The proverbial brick wall. The bank would not change software that would allow for a Linux OS because they would have to abondon money spent for the MS application and then buy another application that would work. I could see that the long term effect could be one that saved the bank a lot of money.

In the end, they thought I wasted money trying to move to another OS. They could not see that the only money spent in the trial was the training because we still had to buy the MS licenses.

by shorne

People argue these things too and in the end nobody on either side changes their opinion so yes it's all an exercise in futility.

by unclerob

You need these topics to be discussed so that politicians have a job ( or so that certain politicians keep their jobs - vote for Martin's Liberals! - just kidding)

It's good to hear about this stuff constantly, at least it gives you a reason to complain about something just in case you're life is perfect.

I'm impressed actually,
I never thought I would see anyone use any of these buzzwords, let alone all 3 of them in an IT forum discussing Windoze vs. Linux,

good job you got me to read your post,
you could have a future in advertising!

by swlchris

First I am a home user. Second, I have made my own home network out of three pc's. Third , I have experience more with hardware than I do with software as two of my three pc's are rebuilt out of scrap parts .
My setup as follows, there is a reason for this as you will see.

One Dell Dimension V333c rebuilt:
Dell MB Intel 440 variant of some sort.
Celeron Slot One 333 MHz CPU
192mb ram
One Seagate 3.4 gb HDD
One Maxtor 20 gb HDD
Intel NIC
32x cdrom
OS: Windows 2000 Professional

One No Name Rebuild pc:
Intel Ca810E MB w onboard a/v
Intel P3 700 Mhz CPU
256 MB ram
One Western Digital 10 GB HDD
One Seagate 20 GB HDD
52x52x32 LG CD R\W
32x4x2 LG CD R\W
OS: Windows 98 SE, Windows 2000 Pro, Windows XP Pro, Slackware Linux with 2.6 kernel

One Emachines 366i2
TG Florida MB
366 Mhz Celeron FPGA CPU
192 MB Ram
One Tri-gem 4.3 gb HDD
One Maxtor 20 gb HDD
One Quantum 2.5 gb HDD
32x8x4 LG CD R\W
OS: Windows XP Pro

Now I have experience with Linux as a home user for over five years going back to Red Hat?s 7.1 release as well as using Windows back from WFW 3.11.
First, most hardware vendors from the get go forget about Linux or do not want to release their proprietary source drivers to anyone. So it?s not so much a question of hardware being compatible with Linux as it is finding the RIGHT hardware.
Unless someone runs out and buys the very latest video graphics card or a right off the shelf system with all sorts of manufacturers only based card readers , most Linux distributions will find and configure the hardware today. Some may require tweaking or a recompile to add the needed modules. Some, as in Fedora Core, will probably have a driver show up during the install process.
In my opinion, it all comes down to two things. How much experience one has with pc?s and how much one is willing to learn. If you get Joe Smith out of CompUSA, chances are unless it?s written on the box, he won?t know a thing about the hardware or even the OS.
If you get someone who has been around pc?s awhile and used them on a more consistent basis, then the issue is one of just finding the right configuration.
For the home user, I find a lot who might know a little about the pc they use, but if it comes to starting from scratch, if there is not a restore cd handy, then they are lost. They don?t get paid to fix their own pc, they have to call tech support if it?s a major manufacturer ( as well as hope the tech speaks passable English), or hope the shop they went to is still in business so they can have it looked it.
For the corporate user it?s vastly different.
In my case, I learned from scratch as I went, and sure, I fried a few things here and there, but it all was experience worth learning.
I will say this, if and when one of my machines goes down and I can?t get it to boot into whatever OS I?m using , out comes my trusty , dinged up Knoppix live cdrom and into the machine it goes?
From a home user?s perspective that what I can say.
Chris

by sangraal

Really most of the linux side of the debate I suspect was mostly based on price and avoidance of licensing issues monopolists, and development potential for the person with a lot of time on their hands to be able to get things to work correctly without bugs on the workstation. But, practicality has actually surpassed the enthusiasm. At least in my experiences, I have found that there are more things to do in life than to have to manually re-edit .conf files, seach for workarounds, and re-recompile, just to do minimal tasks plug and play os's can work with.
I'll bring up an even more critical issue on the efficacy of operating systems not many will give consideration to. efficiency! You know the difference there is when when bloated os memory eating services that are not needed for the most part spin there wheels on the architecture? Well, that should be the real debate because Linux has, and is continuing to follow suite in this area. We should have learned something from Bill Gates if anything and it should not be how to build an O.S. But, Linux continues to try and emualate and not very often surpass!!

by crake

Congratulations. I was wondering how long it would take one of you zealots to regale us with your FUD and slanted opinions.

I'm sure the Linux zealots are tapping out a fierce rebuttal at this very moment.

by apotheon

[i]Really most of the[/i] [b]Windows[/b] [i]side of the debate I suspect was mostly based on[/i] [b]ignorance[/b] [i]and avoidance of[/i] [b]actually trying Linux out before condemning it[/b][i], and development potential for the person with a lot of time on their hands to be able to get things to work correctly without bugs on the workstation. But, practicality has actually surpassed the enthusiasm. At least in my experiences, I have found that there are more things to do in life than to have to manually re-edit[/i] [b]the registry[/b][i], seach for workarounds, and re[/i][b]install and restart[/b][i], just to do minimal tasks[/i] [b]stable[/b] [i]os's can work with.
I'll bring up an even more critical issue on the efficacy of operating systems not many will give consideration to. efficiency! You know the difference there is when when bloated os memory eating services that are not needed for the most part spin there wheels on the architecture? Well, that should be the real debate because[/i] [b]Windows[/b] [i]has, and is continuing to be[/i] [b]a really egregious offender[/b] [i]in this area. We should have learned something from[/i] [b]Stallman, Torvalds, Kernighan, Ritchie, McIlroy, and Thompson[/b] [i]if anything and it should be how to build an O.S. But,[/i] [b]Windows[/b] [i]continues to try and emualate[/i] [b]Unix[/b] [i]and not very often surpass[/i] [b]or even match it[/b][i]!![/i]

note: Other than conceptual errors, no errors in sangraal's text were corrected in this edit.

by deadly ernest

I recently bought a new motherboard and chip with the latest version of Win XP pro to match the new board and chip, the system has a 128 MB video card that is about 12 months old.

To install XP Pro with the latest SP and drivers. I load the OS, then the motherboard driver disc that includes special drivers for the on board NIC, and sound cards, then I load the special drivers for the video card and the TFT monitor. Elapsed time about 3 hours and four discs and 15 minutes of tweaking registry settings to turn off Messenger, Telnet, MS Messenger and a few other basic security holes that the default setting opens. No office apps etc installed.

To load Fedora Core 4 I loaded the DVD disc, auto booted and let it find all the hardware and load drivers for everything. Elapsed time 45 minutes and one disc to have everything loaded and looking better than in Windows; all basic security settings closed. And this included Open Office installed ready to run.

Both systems required inof re language, location and machine name and password.

Using Windows I often open the Task Manager and manually end programs that I have closed yet Windows leaves running in the background, I also sepnd a lot of time closing automatic services that I dont use but Windows keeps opening for me.

I think that tends to clarify which is the easier system and which is the more effective and efficient.

by unclerob

Seriously, I'm not a linux user but I've messed around with it a bit.

You're post is probably the first one I've read in a long time which demonstrates an advantage of one certain Linux dist over Windows XP. Alot of the arguments posted in these discussions don't have alot of "meat on the bone" as it were, your post actually included some valid points.

I'll agree with you on the memory leaks & running programs that have to be force ended in task manager, that can be a pain. XP SP2 does however cure alot of the security issues that you mentioned but it's still not a total cure.

I will ask a question though, your linux dist is on DVD which leads me to believe you have a decent sized installation on this dvd including an office suite and whole bunch of other software, security updates, drivers, etc. I'm assuming your windows xp install media is a cd, probably doesn't have SP2 slipstreamed with it and since it's a cd, obviously has no space for an office suite, extra drivers, security updates, other software, etc.

If so that difference alone accounts for quite a bit of your install time difference. Just thought I would mention it. Good post though, at least someone's making the differences known instead of just saying "mine is better than yours" or "apples vs. oranges"

just my 0.02 cents cdn....

by jmgarvin

I give you kudos. No content and plenty of broad stokes!

I love your "Linux continues to try and emualate and not very often surpass!!"

Excellent! Just a FYI, Linux tries to emulate Unix, if anything....

by johanv

In an effor to potentially safe the Group I work for, I've done some research on implementing Open Source and unfortunatly in our environment we'd have to settle for either a pure MS based environment or a mixed environment as some of our back-end systems (ERP & MRP) are based on MS SQL with .Net clients. From a cost point of view it would be almost impossible to move the Board to approve the adoption of Open Source based ERP Systems (massive cost implication as we would still have to pay for the implementation and the clients would still run on MS Windows as there are not Open Source variant). As for our MRP - system, the vendor only provides a wholy MS based solution and since this is a very high level bespoke solution, we won't find a replacement for at least 10 years (unless the open source community develops a similar system). Also, we'd have to employ additional staff to support such a complex mixed system. So it's not from lack of trying to adopt open source in the business, but a case of comparing whats out there and using the best solution for your business.

by danmcl

I am a net/sysadmin for a web application development company and I find that some problems can only be solved with windows whereas many others are better suited to Linux.
I think it is more of a right tool for the job, but as the saying goes

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail"

Seriously, some people are really anti one OS or the other and I find it a pain, I just say whatever suits you and does the job suits me fine, just dont involve me!

Im a totally mixed bag when it comes to OS', I'm running a mac mini with OSX 10.4.4 on it at home, a debian Laptop that I use for both home and work, a Windows 2000 DEsktop that I use at work only and I administer about 30 Windows servers, with a mix of different applications running on them.

There are also several Linux servers, most of them are invisible to the end user and they dont even realise that they are there. Backup servers, mail servers, File shares (samba tied in to Active Directory for permissions see www.thewetbeaversmileswhentickled.com for more details, its a colleagues Blog, check out my blog at http://danmacs.blogspot.com too!)

I prefer the "sexiness" of the mac and OSX and would gladly replace my windows desktop with one if it supported multiple monitors (or if my em ployer would pony up for a widescreen TFT) I like the power of Debian but appreciate fully that it isnt for everyone (even tech heads can find it a bit of a kerfuffle if they have been breastfed on Windows all their life!)

But people need to get a grip and realise that not everyone likes everything, and that they need to accept that sometimes their favorite bit of software isnt the right tool for the job at hand (see my quote above)

Seriously though, chill the flock out!

by gprinsloo

Both certainly have their merits.

The problems I have seen stem from two principal aspects which have nothing to do with the OS's but rather the persons responsible FINANCE AND IT.

The financial implications have led most to make at least some of their systems rely on the cheaper solution. This is gr8. However without sufficiently trained personel and research such implimentations have cost a damn sight more than double normal installations and implimentations of "Monopolized" systems.

IT staff must realize the powers and limitations of both systems and implement what is needed where needed and not chase this I am the king, lord and master of your domain and will make it work.

Facts.
Windows & Linux have

1. Bugs.
2. Vulnerabilities
3. High costs (Windows Lic.) (Linux tweaking)

Reliabilitiy is dependant on hardware thus the mainstream server manufactures will always provide compatability for both.

Mixed environments are commonplace now and needs to be accepted and integrated. Just educate the IT division so that they all know and accept the strengths and weakness of both Windows and Linux. Neither one has a claim to perfection and both are thraught with LOOOONG solutions to sometimes critical problems.

by lrbassoc

Mixed systems are here and there is a great reason for them. It departments do not want to give up the stability of older systems ( AIX, VMS etc..) and must decide how to bridge the gap between the system and the user. There is a lot of job security in implementing a linux solution, there are not as many qualified engineers out there and when you find a good one a lot of your savings go out the window trying to keep them. I have several clients that have faced this situation, some sincere hobbiest talked them into the free solution, then they found out the users were unable to function and needed retrained, the hobgbiest was in over thier head and leaves and they have know way of running the system themselves. Yes Linux does need to be maintained.
Application development faces the same problems even though they seem to be done mostly with MS tools. This is all good for me since I can charge a premium for supporting these systems or convert them back to Microsoft so the users can actually function again. It's not that it's bad software, people like what they get from Microsoft and have used it since they started. It is what they are trained on, have used for years and are comfortable and productive with.

by yoan.simard

I'm working in an IT dept of an organization that count about 2500 users.

Let's talk about the users side :

First, it is actually impossible to put Linux on users PC because users, mines, have a lot of difficulties to effectively work with windows which is much more easy to operate. Secondly, the variety of users applications that only work on windows is to much bigger. Do you think we should lot time (and time is money) to try to configure wine for each apps ? I don't think so...

From the server perspective :

There is a place for both world... Forget the pricing argument in favour to Linux. When you pay supports and "enterprise certified linux license" there is no money to save with it.

When you need to manage 2500+ users accounts, you must use an integrated directory such as eDirectory (novell) or Active Directory from microsoft.. Linux offer an LDAP server but it is not as powerful as the others... So you don't have the choice for that ?

Let's talk about networks services and databases... Oracle for example is currently developping on Unix and then porting the code to windows... The management of Oracle in Linux is much powerful and the DB is a lot more scalable and stable (I experienced both) So Linux is the solution for that kind of service.

If I want to do a DNS, DHCP, FTP, WEB, Firewall (stateful), and many others, I'll go with linux which is much more flexible and configurable. And there is a chance that I use a totally free Linux version instead of a certified one for those services...

So, to resume, You'll agree with me that both OS have their place and It is not which one si the better but which one is the better to do some specific things? And Better means fast and easy to configure and operate, flexible, stable etc...

by will

Some years ago I invested heavily in an Amiga system - on the basis that this was a Gateway owned company and had been assured of continued support. Six months (and several thousand pounds,)later I discovered that Amiga`s rebirth was a myth maintained by a load of obsessive geeks and some shrewed businessmen who needed to offload a collection of outdated junk.

So, nowadays if it is not Microsoft I don`t want to know. I don`t care if it is open source, has better spec or even (like Amiga o.s. was,) going to take over the world - I had my fingers burned badly and will not risk it again.

With Microsoft my systems work - it is as simple as that, if I want support it comes from qualified engineers not entheusiastic geeks.

by deadly ernest

That explains your angst, however, Amiga was a hardware seller and what is under discussion at the moment is the software that you put on the hardware that you buy. Simply Windows and Linux both go on the very same hardware.

Your previous experience was like which brand of car to buy whereas we are no talking about which brand of petrol to put in it.

A key point you should learn about this discussion is that the majority of qualified engineers (not IT geeks) recommend the use of, and do use, Linux in critical server situations and nearly every corporate Internet gateway has Linux servers as the core of their secure operations.

The real big question now is specialised software server operations and desktop usage - and that is what is being dealt with by most people in this discussion area nowdays.

by will

What a patronising post.

I am aware that Linux and Windows go on the same hardware. When I (and a business partner,) invested heavily in Amiga we were assured that software would be supported and we spent out heavily in that area - we were lied to.

Linux is a cut down Unix and I am also aware that many engineers use it - the black boxes at MTV use Linux to control the telephone calls that pick videos and tunes. A "closed environment" in which the only people with access to the software are specific engineering staff with specialist knowledge is not what I am talking about.

For me the same problem exists with people who promote Linux as did with the Amiga and with a lot of Mac users. Many are part of the "We hate Microsoft brigade" and that is not a reason for using anything.

As an electronics engineer I have little time for bright spark companies who produce non-standard equipment that requires special interfaces, I have lived too long for all that and want things to fit and to work. I do not have the time for endless tweaking for things to be reliable.

by chuckish

You never did answer the question: where is Linux not perfect? And I'll offer a challenge: you can't use the word 'depends' in your response.

by apotheon

Fritz_Monroe didn't ask that question, so of course I didn't answer it. There's no tap dancing involved in not answering a question that wasn't asked.

I've actually addressed Linux shortcomings several times this morning already. I've run out of motivation to repeat myself. Perhaps I'll come back to this later.

by noller1

No doubt Linux takes experience to set up and configure to ones likes, and vender support is slow moving. However the vender support is gaining stride and the ease of configuration and management is improving as Linux moves toward the desktop.SuSe OSS 10 is a strong contender now with a lot of support right ot of the box and GUI configuration and management tools. At the core Linux still remains more stable and more secure than it's Microsoft counterpart.
Microsoft boust its ease of use and managment and in the fore ground it looks good, but in the application and thread level it fails just as much as it ever did, we just don't see it fail anymore.The vender support is quite good for the most part.The ease of management on the other hand is just as taxing as any Linux machine.The cost differance between the two makes Linux a strong competitor. ( There is a good reason why it is Linux Apache Servers powering the WWW.)

by evansra

I work at a software development company. My first four years here, I was in Operations, providing PC and Network support.
I received a copy of Linux, nearly 4 years before installing it on a Home PC, with a SCSI drive.
Although I was a certified Cisco Network Instructor, I was still apprehensive when it came to installing this new O/S.
I guessed at the things I had to enter an answer, and I selected the defaults, where available.
WOW! I was impressed with how well the system works! The speed is incredible, vs what happened with Windows 98 or Windows ME installed on the same drive!
I read, and echo a statement I saw yesterday, Linux is not competing with Microsoft...It is an alternative to it. If it will work in your world, whether personal or corporate, it is a very valuable option to have!
Thank you,
Randy Evans
Omaha, NE

by vectra-v6

By far the biggest problem with achieving a mass uptake of Linux is the that it can be a nightmare to install. I recently migrated a PC that had reliably run MS Server / Exchange 2003 to Linux. I tried 4 versions from 3 developers, both download and retail boxes, each time it hit a vague error message and aborted the install. Persistance eventually won through and I got SuSE successfully installed. But I am an IT Pro, therefore stupid enough the MAKE it work, 'Joe Public' would have given up long before.
Whether you like Microsoft or not, if you drop a Windows CD near the PC come back 40 minutes later and it would have climbed into the drive and installed the OS, network connection, Interneted updates, found the printer and sent you a welcome message - well not quite but you know what I am saying.
Until this is resolved, the better Linux GUI, performance, services etc etc etc it will remain the domain of IT Pro with enthusiasm for the harder option.

by jcampbel

I need linux as a server because I don't have time to watch a Windows box and reboot it when it starts misbehaving. I use both windows and linux on my desktop. They both have their strong points and week points. Mostly, the problem with linux on the desktop is that people want the apps they are familiar with. If that problem were solved, then it would be a much easier decision.

by andeanderson

How many of the exact same discussions are we going to be hit with? Just do a quick search if you are really interested in all of the different opinions and you will find enough material to keep you busy for years.

Linux vs Microsoft vs OS2 vs etc...

Who cares? Why not argue about which car is better: Motorcraft vs GM vs Toyota vs etc...?

We will use what we feel comfortable with or are required to use in our jobs. Why this desire to start another round of battles? Is it just to get your name out for others to see? Or, are you really that new to computer operating systems?

by maverrick

Well you may say that this topic has been dead and gone but in todays mixed environment, its interesting to have this discussion to explore the possibilites of Linux and Windows co-existing in the same environment.
I work as a sys/net admin for a company that provides managed IT services. From my limited experience I have found that Active Directory is great to have. It is very scalable, powerful and easy to manage; MS Exchange 2003 is excellent and it supports PDAs and manages contacts and calendars well. I have tried integrating Linux into the Windows domain and I have found that it works brilliantly. I have configured a FC4 laptop to authenticate users against AD and got Evolution to work with MS Exchange 2003 with a ximian exchange connector. This gives the average user who needs the basic functionalities of corporate mail and a corporate login account access to a PC.
I agree that IIS isnt really the way to go. Having an apache server would be my preferred way to take things moving forward and a Linux based FTP server would be the best choice for security. Also, nothing can beat a sun solaris machine when it comes to running developer builds and simulations.
The secret to having an efficient network is to stop flogging the other OS with a few preconceived ideas and start understanding the benefits of each OS and using the best that they can offer to tailor it for your operating environment.

by shorne

Because the quoted post is a valid point to make in the context of the thread.

by jdclyde

no one MADE them come in and read yet another win v lin discussion.

Why cry in your milk if you didn't want milk in the first place?

And as a side note, SOME of these are actually worth reading when you can get people to provide valid arguments to support or disprove a point. It is the nutcases that have a religious fanatisism for an OS, be it win/lin/mac, it is JUST a friggen tool, not a way of life.

get over yourseves! (and use linux! :D )

by shorne

ya I get ya but I was just saying that his comment about being bored about it all is actually valid input. To use your example if people are arguing Milk vs. Juice it's valid to say I'm sick and tired of all this fighting just drink whatever the heck you want. You're right in the broader sense..if it's boring you move on and the rest will continue on.

by unclerob

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/e510_nseries?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs

The link above will bring you to Dell's website page offering their "N" series desktops which don't have any OS installed whatsoever, and don't come with a Windows license which would lead me to believe that you're not buying a windows pc and not paying extra for windows. It does come with a FreeDOS disc which you can install (it is not pre-installed) if you choose to use it.

Note, Dell will not support any OS problems you have if you install the OS yourself, Windows, Linux or otherwise.

So in conclusion, Dell does offer you a choice.

Here are the specs on one of their N Series desktops:

"Are you looking for a desktop on which you can run Linux? or other open-source operating systems? Look no further!

Dell's new open-source n Series desktop solution provides customers with a DimensionTM E510 desktop without an installed or included Microsoft? operating system. With the n Series desktop, customers have the flexibility to install an alternative operating system (such as a version of Linux? ), and help reduce the price of this system. In addition, the n Series desktop comes with a non-formatted hard drive ready for your custom installation. Dell's n Series desktop ships with a copy of FreeDosTM , an open-source operating system that is ready to install. "

Dimension n Series E510
Intel? Pentium? Processor 521 with HT Technology
FreeDOS included in the box, ready to install
512MB DDR SDRAM at 400MHz
80GB1 Ultra ATA/100 7200RPM Hard Drive

$619 before taxes & shipping

And NO, I don't work for Dell, I don't even own one but a few users here at work recently bought from Dell and I helped them setup their pc's at home and I noticed that Dell was offering some of their units sans Windows installed.

There is always a choice, you just have to look for it.

.... just my 0.02 cents cdn, feel free to agree or disagree ;-)

by guitardave8077

The KDE and GNOME graphical interfaces are very intuitive and easy to use, IMO. Many home users wouldn't even need to know how to program in the shell environment.

KNOPPIX is a great distro for Linux newbies and doesn't require formatting of disks or installation on the user's part. Instead it's a 'live' bootable CD. If you're interested in seeing how Linux looks and feels without making the full 'switchover commitment', check it out. Knoppix.org

by jdh9

As a veteran from CPM, DOS, to the latest Win also my job stayed with UNIX, Siemens Linux, SuSe Linux. It all depends what you want to do. Windows has its GUI modules less expensive, Linux has its user access levels and better process mng. If you have the staff and the budget both systems serve its purpose. Bill Gates was the Karl Marx of software freeing us from the bondage of IBM, SUN, HP, DEC and now Linux frees us from him but breaks up in many fashions where global business demands unity.
So it is the usual "Razzall Dazzall"

by apotheon

1. You don't have to use vi to edit a file. Try using one of the multitude of graphical text editors and word processors available. If you want a highly functional, reasonably unbloated text editor, I recommend SciTE.

2. You don't need a Master's degree in anything to cut and paste in vi. Delete something (for instance, [b]dd[/b] will delete a complete line), then go to just before where you want to insert the pasted text (such as on the line before where you want to paste it if you cut an entire line), and hit [b]p[/b]. Pretty simple, actually, and I use it all the time. It's a heck of a lot faster than having to switch between keyboard and mouse all the time for cut and paste procedures, trying to make sure it highlights exactly what you want (and no more), clicking and right-clicking and choosing things in menus, and so on.

3. You can use the arrow keys to move around in vim (vi improved) if you want to.

by ibanezoo

I'm not sure I get the main point of your discussion.... At our company I have rolled out 20 or 30 Linux servers and a couple workstations and a few Windows servers few hundred Windows workstations. For us it all revolves around the applications to be run on them. If we need a system to be running Adobe CS or Quark its a Windows box. If I can find a cheaper/better/faster/more stable version of a program we need a certain functionality for, and not necessarily compatibility I will use a Linux box, more for being more comfortable in a *nix environment than anything. We have quite a few home users interested in Linux that I've burned some live Linux distros for and they say once they used them for a little bit they only use Linux at home. The depth of their use I don't know, but they seem to be happy and thank me alot. For myself at home I have 2 Xp boxes, 1 Linux box, and a dual boot xp/linux notebook. I'm not sure about corporate money/time/etc .... our company uses what is appropriate for a given problem. I "learned Linux" at home by myself. I've sat my grandmothing in front of a Linux box and she had no trouble getting on the internet or finding email... I dunno, I think thats why I don't get your point, I don't really differentiate between OSs as much as other people I guess...

by lalala

it's a balancing act. in this day and age the most important features for home users are usability and security. the easier *nix becomes to use for the new/avg user the more widespread it will be used..and each distro gets better with ea release. if Mac OSX would run on generic x86 hardware it would outsell Win hands down.

by apotheon

MacOS X is proof that it's easier to make unix pretty than to make Windows stable and secure.

by shorne

I got you to read this one too.
You're right, I should go into advertising. LMAO

by lucifer_sam_siam_cat

I use windoze for my audio recording stuff because Adobe Audition hasn't put out a linux version yet. AFAIK, they also haven't implemented the update(s) I'm looking for, so Audition will eventually be partly or fully replaced by something else that *does* have the ability to set markers where the tempo and time signature change in mid-tune. Cakewalk has had this feature for at least a decade....

I can't wait to try ardour. If it works out, I may be able to almost completely de-micro$oft my life.

I also use windoze for devolopment in vb6, because micro$oft has been a tad slow in developing a linux version of visual studio.... :^)

C ya,
Dutch

by apotheon

Who do you think you are, NOLA Mayor Ray Nagin? He's America's flavorite racist, you know.

by nz_justice

Why is there a choice between only linux and windows, A lot of Corporate environments have hybrid networks. using UNIX and Windows, and becuase linux apps are free, a lot of people use the windows version of them. What about MAC's. MAC's are also used in the Corporate environment and at home. Linux is different from windows, and feeds the open source environment. Microsoft are looking at cashing in on linux methodolgy and have resently employed one of the top linux guru's

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1813703,00.asp

You don't be number one in the market place by ignoring your competion (you buy them out or employ them).

Windows vs Linux is dead.

by malcolm davis

Now that Mac OS is available on Intel, Unix based, much easier to use and configure than either Linux or Windows, is it possible that Mac is really the best choice for corporate and home users?

by jcitizen

At least the responders to this thread have gotten down to the point(so far). I know a few people who bought cheap computers from WalMart with what I think was some version of Mandriva installed.

But they all ended up switching to MS because either the support was poor or they got tired of trying to figure out the huge maze of addons that are freely available.

by jmgarvin

The Wally World Linux boxes come installed with Linspire, and I have to say that they have EXCELLENT support.

Are you sure they weren't calling Wal-Mart?

by jaqui

Mandrake 8 series was sold at Wal-Mart on systems.
You can still buy a system with Mandriva on it, from Mandriva.

Currently the only os options at Wal-mart are linspire and windows.

by deadly ernest

The Windows version I got included SP2 and came on a DVD, the Fedore Core 4 came on a DVD and was the back side of a magazine supplied DVD with a lot of other stuff on the front.

The biggest differences in the discs is that the Linux being open source and with most stuff free included a lot of extras that the default load options load - like Open Office; whilst MS want to make you pay more for it a get a second disc - an understandable marketing ploy.

I saw the biggest difference as being that the FC4 disc came with a lot of hardware drivers that the Windows disc did not and I had to load a lot of extra hardware specific drivers post Windows installation to make them work properly whilst FC4 did it in the installation. This approach by FC4 of giving extra to make it easier is greatly appreciated and shows a more customer care attitude.

I currently use both Windows and Linux mainly because I need to keep skills current in Windows for work reasons. Also having been around since the days of micro-computers and seen the changes that were made possible by the early work by Bill Gates I have an attitude of "What is best for this client'.

I recently rebuilt a crashed machine for a client - best option would have been to instal FC4 - she tried it but could not work it, tried XP Pro, she could not work that either as it was too different - ended up reinstalling DOS 6, Win 3.1 and an old Win 32 bit upgrade program to improve performance, client was happy as that was what she knew how to use. Horses for courses.

Sadly much of the argument on this topic is based on personal preference and old knowledge - both systems have their place - my experiences have been that Linux is a better technical product that was poorly marketted and not properly set for anti-tech users.

I recently started a thread on the 64 bit hardware and problems I have had with that - I find it interesting that MS is doing very little in this area at present whilst the Open Source Community is getting on with making it very usable.

by deadly ernest

The fact that some people lied to you about the Amiga does not mean that everyone will lie about everything - but does mean that you should check up on what they tell you. I agree that hating one thing is not enough reason to promote anything against it by itself. I also dislike closed shops.

I have had more experience with Windows than with Linux and have been working with computers since 1980 - mainframes, then microcomputers, now PCs - so I have had a some experience.

Yes Linux can be more readily used to specialise software for hardware than Windows can - many consumer electronic goods with computer controls have restricted specialised versions of linux as their control system, VCRs, TIVOs, even some cars and trucks.

What we have been discussing is the various general use versions where you just load it out of the box and then use as is - mostly with an aim towards the end user ease of use and general business use.

I still use both Windows and Linux, and over the years the biggest problem I have had with Linux was finding a suitable driver for some hardware that did not sell well - I have had many problems with Windows due to it replaces drivers, security issues and tweaking for normal daily use.

In the end it comes down to examining what you want the software to do and then choosing the best for your situation.

by will

My son is an IT graduate and is currently on contract to a government dept working on a database. The system has to be 100% secure and compatible with several 100 hand held units. It also has to be a a system that another engineer can work with at a later date. So, it has to be Microsoft the risk with sensitive and confidential information is too great.

He too went through the Linux phase and has become tired of it and has reverted back to W2K for his personal use. I have found w2k to be rock solid reliable and worth every penny.

The fact is that if people had to pay for Linux the system would not ever be considered.

by jmgarvin

So because of some apocryphal event and a blantant appeal to authority, we are take it as LAW that MS must be better because:

A) The government may or may not use if for sensative data
B) 100% secure (blech) and compatible (blech) with PDAs of some kind can only happen in the MS realm
C) Programmers don't "know" Linux
D) W2k is more robust and more "solid" than Linux could ever hope to be
E) Linux is free and therefor inferior

Excellent posting! Kudos! You took all the cliches and put them in ONE post! My hat is off to you sir...

by deadly ernest

of the person in charge. I have seen military projects where the operating system to be used has changed with each change of senior officer in command as they wanted the project to be in a system that they already knew ans understood. I have also seen a military project where the product was done in Unix and a Windows compatible overlay provided; another unit did the same project as a wholely Windows project. The Unix based project went into use as it proved more reliable.

But speaking of Windows and reliability - some years back I saw a USA Dept of Defence article about why some of the Patriot Missile systems used in the Gulf War in the early 1990s failled to hit their targets (resulting is some loss of life) - the investigation found the cause to be a very small error in time management within the Windows operating system that was not noticible if the system was live for several hours but became critical when the system was live for a few days - result was a major change to the missile tracking software.

I know of govt databases where the database is on a Unix system and is accessed by a range of mainframe and PC systems without troubles - they do so using tcp/ip and html - marvelous how using a general access industry standard systems allows easy compatibility.

by apotheon

"[i]it has to be Microsoft the risk with sensitive and confidential information is too great.[/i]"

Okay, now you're just making crap up. That's the most absurd thing I've heard in a very, very long time.

by mist271

I may be wrong, But I believe there are more people with computers than businesses.And after speaking to only say 200 young and old, my conclusion is this.A computer is like a fridge we all need one in this day and age, regarding the operating system, It really does not matter as long as it is compatible to other systems and the programs used,i.e. email,network,messaging,
word processing,file transfer,webcam. these are the things that need to work by just clicking the mouse etc.Windows has little problem in this area, minor glitches yes, but every system as them.Linux i have tried a few versions, all had
Big problems, but they are getting less and it appears that within the next 5 years maybe less
that linux distros will be as user friendly as windows are at this time.

by jmgarvin

The GUIs provided are quite easy to use and even have GUI features to setup complex things (like BIND).

Hell, there are GUIS that make Linux look just like Mac OS 9, Mac OS X, Win9x, and WinXP. How is that harder?

Plus there are choices. If I don't like Vi, I can use emacs, gedit, or pico.

by driv101

becouse when microsoft got the deal for the os on IBM they had it in their contract to get paid for a os on any IBM computer that can run a ms os
that means the ibm cloans also such as dell or any body else on the pc

by don_the_newbie

I have a friend who bought an Acer laptop with 2.0Ghz Celeron processor and Linux OS. After not using it for two weeks because he does not know how to use linux (ordinary user), he called me up to FIX it. I opn the unit, then booted up. To my surprise, it took 2 minutes for linux to load. The simply solution is to unistall linux, install Windows XP and Office 2003. After which, he can use the computer less than 40 seconds after power on. Now how can linux sell to ordinary user when it actually its interface less attractive that Windows plus the unfamiliar applications. Even the Open Office 10 installed has no match to the feature of Office XP, much less Office 2003.

Our office also have three linux useless machines whose only reason of being there is because the Central Office required such to be there. I can make programs in Java, C, Visual Basic, Visual Foxpro, also batch file (I have been using computers since 1990) - but why should I spend hours or days for thing that can be done in minutes.

by jmgarvin

Not only is this pure FUD, but pure ignorance as well.

On a side note:
A) You don't need to turn off or reboot a *nix box very often.
B) You DO need to reboot and turn off a Windows box constantly (every update, patch, change, install, et al)
C) Linux, slow? HA! The resource usage footprint is FAR smaller than Windows.
D) Linux provides choice, unlike MS who provides a monopolistic OS that provides NO choice

As far as coding goes...I don't care what platform I'm on...I can code quickly in any platform...If you can't "get" that coding is just using a text editor and a compiler/interpreter, I don't believe you can code.

Why would it take you HOURS OR DAYS to code the same thing on a different platform? Especially, C, Java, and "batch files." (I assume you are eluding to scripting of some sort).

by apotheon

Batch files are the DOS equivalent of shell scripts -- minus most of the power and flexibility of a unix shell.

by apotheon

Something drastically wrong was done. I'm typing this on a 366MHz Pentium 2 with 128MB of RAM, and it doesn't take anywhere near two minutes for this thing to boot up. I can't imagine what had been done to that thing to make it take that friggin' long.

That's not Linux being slow. It's something else. There's no way in the world it should have been taking that long on a 2GHz processor.

by jaqui

I'm going to play mean to myself.. I bought an old 386 laptop for 5 bucks the other day.
as soon as I get the time, I'll create an install system on zip disk ( no cdrom, no network, no pcmcia, no usb ) and see how much fun I can have building linux on this antiquated piece of crap.

step one: find a power supply.
step two: see if it even boots to dos.
[ most likely has dos on it, only a 40 mb hard drive ]
:D

by stress junkie

When I'm working in a client's office I simply use the boot time of my workstation to remove my coat and hang it up. BTW I've seen many Windows computers take several minutes to start. What's the big deal? How many times a day do you restart a computer? If you have to complain at least try to make it about something that really matters. And, different Linux distributions take different amounts of time to boot.

by davep89

I am yet to hear a good reason for using Linux on a desktop for general office automation tasks.

My organisation has a purchasing agreement with Microsoft that delivers reasonable prices for Windows and compatible products. Skilled Windows technical staff are widely available as is certified training. Users are familiar with Windows and compatible products and get the same look and feel across products.

Microsoft provides reasonable service regarding patch delivery and in a network of 500 PCs and 20 servers we don't have problems with viruses.

I can't see how I would justify rejigging our entire operation to take advantage of whatever opportunities are presented by Linux.

The same is not true for home use where the cost of Microsoft products is a much bigger factor. Its is still true though that expertise is more widely available for Microsoft products, installation and setup of Microsoft products is more straight forward, there are likely to be less compatibility issues with Microsoft products, and Microsoft products tend to be generally more user friendly, feature rich and better finished.

And none of this means I wouldn't use Linux anywhere it made sense which I currently believe is back end server functions.

by pocketken

The responses from industry technicians, programmers, business owners and the like... who have used Microsoft in thier production environment and who have generally also extensively used Mac and linux (as I have) USUALLY have valid and eloquent arguments presenting the case for windows.

Those responders on the side of linux USUALLY slander, post nonsense and mean-spirited derrogatory rebuttal, use ever-so-clever phrases like "M$" and do not generally ever answer the honest questions over whether it is worthwhile to retool your environment, retrain your users etc. etc. etc. in order to switch to a new operating system.

It's ludicrous. Even my own post is ludicrous but only because it (like so many I've read here) has NOTHING to do with the topic.

So - to correct that:
Linux is great. It's a reliable server operating system which has not yet become popular enough to be affected by the mainstream spyware, virii and related internet trash. I personally use an athlon64 suse machine as my vpn/web/email server.
At work however, I use a windows 2003 server for this same function. There are many advantages to VPN on the 2003 server for that environment of XP clients. Hardware firewalls provide the security I need in my low risk environment and the 2003 server is a solid reliable machine which has not been rebooted in probably a year.

Both definately have thier place, and I'm not somehow afraid to say that (as linux worshippers seem to be.)

Stop falling back on your policy differences with Microsoft as an organization, they have nothing to do with the technical merit of the software and that's the issue at hand.

Finally.... I can't let this go. There's an unbelievable amount of feedback from linux users on this issue (though not in this thread, thankfully) that hardcore windows technicians are simply not as skilled (or what have you) as unix / linux technicians.
Now how can the same people who say that windows is this easy-mac "luser" OS, when they obviously can't keep their windows machines from crashing?
But I thought it was so "easy"...?
Those of us who work in this field professionally do not have this problem. I'm not saying a windows machine has NEVER crashed on my network... but to be absolutely honest the 2003 server has easily matched the uptime of my suse box here. Microsoft has made huge strides and until someone admits that, I don't take their argument seriously.

I don't understand Apple. I worked there for a few years... don't really want to talk about it. I'll let it suffice that I don't respect the company or their products, but they aren't part of this conversation.

by dogknees

I am a Unix user from way back, so I would be happy to run Linux, if it met my requirements for a home PC. It doesn't at the moment.

I have very simple requirements for my home PC. I expect to be able to buy pretty much any software written for a PC platform off the shelf, take it home, load it, and run it immediately.

That includes the latest game, a development platform, music creation software, high-end graphics, whatever I feel like buying today.

I don't run an internet connection at home because that lets me keep my PC running fast with no virus checking/etc clogging things up. So, having to download something to get my new game running is not acceptable.

I also require it to work correctly with any standard hardware I might buy. Again, without requiring me to run around and download patches or whatever. This would include wireless mouse and keyboards, graphics tablets, midi keyboards, LEGO Mindstorms system, whatever.

If I'm wrong, please explain how to setup in the same environment (no internet connection) and get the same results (buy any off the shelf software/hardware, take it home, load it and play it).

Until then, Linux just doesn't meet my requirements.

by deadly ernest

"I expect to be able to buy pretty much any software written for a PC platform off the shelf, take it home, load it, and run it immediately."

"I also require it to work correctly with any standard hardware I might buy. Again, without requiring me to run around and download patches or whatever. This would include wireless mouse and keyboards, graphics tablets, midi keyboards, LEGO Mindstorms system, whatever."

I have boxes of software written for Windows that I can no longer use on a Windows box because they do not support the older operating systems in anyway and the current systems are NOT compatible with the older systems or most of the software written for it, also getting older OS drivers for the latest hardware is problem to. Yet I still use the software by running it within WINE on a Linux box, I run the games within Cedega as it is a bit better for the games - even most of the latest Windows games.

I have not yet been able to buy any graphics cards, scanners, modems, or printers that did not require some fancy footwork to get the specially written device drivers to work within the Windows version that they were written for and none will work with the generic Windows drivers at all.

My current PC and the previous one require several extra drivers to be loaded to work properly in Windows - yet both work well in Linux without any extra drivers to get the hardware working. In each case I just placed the disc with the operating system in the machine and rebooted - both Mandrake 10 and Fedora Core 4 loaded and worked perfectly with built in drivers for the graphics card, modem, printer and both scanners (one of which I can not get Windows drivers for anything later than Win 98SE).

I have seen this issue from both sides and I still think that choosing here is a matter of personal preference for most people and that comes down to what they are used to - both have their own way of doing things that are different and people going from one to the other notice the differences not the similarities etc.

by deadly ernest

You do as you are told; everything is fine because that is what you are told and the problems are capitalist lies; none of yesterday's things are allowed to work with today's.

Lets look at software compatibility - each and every version of Windows is so different (except the security holes) that you need a new driver for every item of hardware for each version of Windows; the third party software bought for Win 9x or Win NT or Win 2K will not run in Win XP unless you go and buy a new copy that has been rewritten for it, even some of the MS software will not run inlater versions.

Want disorder and confusion - try keeping up with the service packs and security patches - most of which are for holes found in earlier versions of Windows but never permanently fixed.

MS training is so good that you can buy the exams off the Internet and even get other people to sit them for you.

Linux is so bad that MS have hired some top Linux coders to use Linux methods in trying to clean up the Windows code for Vista.

As I have said before which you use is mostly personal choice and prior experience both have their places. Yes you can have some issues with a Linux installation, but the same is said for Windows - just different issues and you don't notice the ones that you are familiar with.

The last time I had a simple clean installation of Windows was over 10 years ago with DOS 6.2 and Win 3.1 - ever since I have had problems with every Windows installation re video drivers, printer drivers, modem and scanner drivers. Since I Win 9x never had a Windows installation that got all of these right by itself (especially the modems) and always requires a lot of work by me to get them going right. Modems are a big problems as Win 2K and Win XP have a habit of removing the manufacturer's modem drivers and replacing them with generic USA drivers - it appears that Windows does not like the different commands required to operate in Australia.

Each Linux Kernel is very carefully coordinated and tested - wish we could say the same for Windows. Sure there are a number of Linux versions but the same is true for Windows - W2K server, W2K advanced server, XP Home, XP Pro, XP Pro 64, CE, W3K server and that is just the very latest options.

by issinho

Really, we all need to understand the larger picture here. You're making an attack without knowing 100% of what you're talking about. Let's take the "no recognised certification" for starters. There are at least 2 Certifications that I know of that are specifically for Linux: Linux+ (offered by CompTIA who also offers the A+ exam) and the Red Hat Certified Technician and Engineer Certifications (offered by, you guessed it, Red Hat, one of the largest and most popular Distrobutions out there).

I think where you're getting confused is in the Distros. See, when you look at it that way, your plight does make sense, there are so many to choose from. Isn't that the beauty of Linux? The freedom of choice? Every Distro has it's own support and version control. What's even better is that it is peer-governed society. Programmers, technicians, and users colaborate to better the program and distrobution. Really, it's a Utopia, not an Anarchy.

No change control? Go with the larger distros: SuSE, Fedora (Red Hat), or Mandriva (Mandrake). They all have an update software similar to the M$ update.

Really, the most confusing thing about Linux is choosing the right Distro for you and your needs.
Just like Windows. I knew a couple of guys who didn't want 2000 or XP because everything they did could be done in 98 and they had no problems with it before. Sure, that works until it totally dies and you cannot find support for it. They point is that Linux is so diverse that there is a distro for everybody, you just have to find it.

by avid

i am learning linux and i like using it as a server for 2 reasons.
1. it just works.. after what can sometimes be a lengthy configuration, it does do the job you asked it to without to much baby sitting.
2. the local admins are so confused by linux servers that, in most cases, they are afraid to touch it. it keeps them from swimming in my pond, so to speak.

having said that, as a desktop, it is not ready for corporate America. Reasons ?
Not the industry standard. Not enough training available. not enough compatible software (due to microsoft's foothold) hardware IS still hard to configure. installing software IS still hard to do. would any of you admins out there actually want to replace your clients desktops with linux boxes. if you did you would have to move in and do there work for them, no matter how many classes you give them. windows has the market cornered right now. bill is a hell of a business man. if the linux desktop is to succeed, it is going to have to be more user friendly and have the available training and support that microsoft offers. it will also need to be MUCH more intuitive.

by stress junkie

I have an 80486 DX/100 that I'm going to put into service. I hate the idea of having it's old disks spinning all of the time since I'm going to use it as a network security appliance. The old disks would probably use too much electricity and make too much noise. Anyway, I've been looking into putting a Linux distro onto a 1GB or 2GB compact flash card. There are some adapters that connect a CF reader/writer to a computer IDE interface and they are bootable. These CF cards come in a wide range of speeds now with an equally wide range of prices. It looks to me that the prices for a slow CF card and an adapter would be about $40(US) for the bootable CF reader/writer and about $100(US) for the 1GB CF card.

Just thought you might be interested in what I've found. :D

by stress junkie

I absolutely agree that expensive assets should not be prematurely abandoned in any environment. My idea is that new functions such as the need for an additional DNS server could be well served by putting old hardware into use to perform that function with Linux. A new file server or a new print server could also be a good way to use old equipment with Linux. This approach doesn't cause the panic in management if the trial doesn't work out. The only cost is the time that you spend exploring this possibility. That could easily be no more than the time you would spend researching the latest Microsoft solution for the same function. I expect that most business managers will be more willing to accept a small trial in a server role than to accept the idea of making big changes to the existing configuration and abandoning those expensive software licenses and I agree with that thinking. I would always try to keep existing assets in service for as long as possible.