OSNews

What is your measure of 'boot time' -- my boot time is to get to a console. Windows (of course) boots into a gooey. If your 'kernel' boot time is longer then your entire windows boot time, prehaps making your own kernel would be in order. To say 'Windows boots faster than Linux' is a terrible statement for a paragraph. Just because you and other people don't know how to trim kernel fat, doesn't mean that other people do not, so please don't take us down with you. If you have to STRETCH to make a title work, odds are, try a new one.

Windows file system is clearer than Linux... Have you ever looked at ./configure? You could put files wherever you want, why do you have to say that they file system is more confusing with Linux. As for 'Downloads and Music' for windows, mkdir ~/Downloads ; mkdir ~/Music

I'm not sure why we are dumbing down stuff for 'newbies' -- I was a newbie 5 years ago and ran Slackware 7.x -- why is it that your are trying to tell me, and the other experienced users that choosing a boot loader is too confusing for a new user? I'm sorry if there are a lot of people who try new things and God forbid, have to read! But thats the way life is, maybe a little reading, and understanding that wasen't given to you with an associated fancy picture is something we need. My g/f understood how to install Mandrake on her computer, by herself, and no, she doesn't know any more about a windows install then a Linux install.

Although I never experienced a single virus in my life (and I do not run a virus scanner, isn't that a miracle?), it is of course unquestionably true.

Without a virus scanner, how do you know if you don't have a virus or not? Not all viruses are blatant and right in your face.

Hearing people's opinions, good or bad, is the risk you take when you publish your thoughts. You shouldn't have to post a second article to justify your first. When you tackle the issue of Windows & Linux, you are going to get people flaming back and forth. Even if you just wrote one sentence, "I love both Windows and Linux." You'll get flamed just for listing Windows first and Linux second.
<p>
Now to my own opinion of your first article, I think the reason people were outraged by it was because you claimed that you weren't taking sides, that you liked both operating systems, but the path you took was pointing out all the good parts of windows and the bad parts of Linux. This seems VERY biased, even if that wasn't your intention. From a quick skim of the article it seems that you are saying, "Windows is not as bad as you think it is, but Linux sucks."
<p>
One of the worst parts of it was where you claimed that Linux had a crappy way of installing programs. Well, Windows is no better. Sure, I can grab a self-installing program off the web and install it by double-clicking on its icon. That seems pretty easy. Or, I can do "apt-get install gimp" and install gimp.
<p>
Now, you did say that you hadn't played around with apt-get enough yet to form an opinion, so perhaps you shouldn't have even mentioned it. Instead of just saying that Linux's installation procedure is "crap," you should have given examples of why it is crap... such as being stuck in RPM hell or whatever your experience is that makes you dislike it.
<p>
I guess my main gripe with your original article is that it didn't seem to say anything useful. It seemed to be something of a ramble instead of a coherent discussion and unfortunately, very few people understood what you wre trying to do.

Keep it civilized around here, or most comments will go down. Don't flame and don't write flamebaits.

It's a hot hot topic that really depends on your viewpoint.

It's almost analogous of someone posting a why a Ford truck isn't Bliss or why a Dodge truck isn't on a redneck forum.

Of course you'd have to remember that Ford would have to be found guilty of anti trust abuse of a monopoly position and Dodge and Chevy both to have much less of a market share...

Good point .

But it's not like I dont have a virus scanner, it's just that I dont run one in the background or anything. I ocassionally scan my disks (once a month or something), and I never have found a thing.

I think I'm really playing with fate here though

As usual, it is not the author's place to tell me what OS I should like.

It is only flame bait if you wish it to be so...
Personally, I like Linux more than Windows (for a lot of reasons) - but I was perfectly able to read the articles without being offended by them.

Maybe because I happen to agree with the author on certain points:
- Surely, Linux is great (especially if you take into consideration the quality/price factor). But it isn't perfect (or bliss, if you will). And how would you expect Linux to improve if people who critizise it are ignored, flamed and banished from the community by loud-mouthed zealots who seem to be blinded by the forementioned bliss?
- The UNIX way of organising it's files is quite confusing to newbies... Not because files belonging to a package are spread all over the system, but because of the meaningless (for newbies) names for the directories...
What's in /lib? What's the difference between /lib and /usr/lib and /usr/local/lib? (and the same goes for /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, and so on). There's no reason to have all these different places for binaries any longer. There was a time when that was practical, but it simply doesn't apply to the average desktop system.

It's a hot hot topic that really depends on your viewpoint.
That's not an excuse for being rude. People should be able to counter his arguments without starting flame-wars, of which we have seen enough already.

Yours sincerely,
Simon

I would like to inform you that windows does NOT fall in the category of high-priced software (think Oracle).

The Consumer edition of windows sell for the price of 3 computer games, which is nothing to cry about.

If the main reason for choosing linux was the CD's price tag, it would be a bit silly.
I think you totally missed the point of the Open-source vs Microsoft debate.

In any large organisation, the price of software licenses is less than 10% of TCO. If some of them choose Linux instead, it's certainly not because of the per-unit license price.

The main reason some organisations reject Microsoft in favour of open-source is to get rid of the Microsoft lock-in and proprietary data file formats.
Other organisations reject it for political reasons (think City of Munich) and it's also OK. Why pay millions to a very arrogant foreign corporation when you can give them to locals with a competitive product and at the same time get rid of an annoying lock-in?

Please stop posting flame-bait articles on OSNews if you do not bring anything new to the table.

I'm always a bit amazed at how pissy some posters get just because someone else didn't share their experiences and preferences. These are the zealots who make learning difficult because they spend more time nitpicking and trolling than actually sharing information. Thanks, guys.

I'm also very amazed at the idea that so many in the OSS camp want only distros that are labor-intensive. Sorry, but most of us just want to work with our computers...whether we're using Windows, Linux, a BSD, OSX, or anything else.

Looking at the comment from KryptoBSD above provides an excellent example. He's abviously upset that some Linux distros are, as he put it, "dumbing stuff down for 'newbies.'" He then goes on to explain that he started off with Slack. Well, good for him. I'm glad he did it, and I'm glad he learned a lot. Me? I have a computer so I can be productive, not so I can be an administrator. Therefore, there are distros like SuSE and Mandrake for me. There are good, ready reference guides to help me through any problems I might have, and those are few and far between. He can continue to work with Slack, Debian, or a BSD if he wants the lean stuff...it's not like the major distros have pushed those by the wayside. Unfortunately, he (like so many others) takes a stance that I truly do not understand: that the "easier" distros are ruining all the fun.

Well, too bad. I'm going to get back to work now...writing, not configuring.

I don't think that you can ever make the process of installing and configuring an OS "newbie friendly" to the casual Windows user, no matter how easy you make it. The *process* of messing with your computer and installing different OS's itself is so intimidating that most people won't try it. When you think of it, most people don't even install Windows, they purchase computers with Windows pre-installed. They don't re-install it for years, and if something goes wrong they pay a tech guy to fix it which usually involves the re-installation of Windows.

And herein lies the problem with trying to make the installation and configuration of Linux "newbie friendly" - it's pointless. only more technically inclined users will try something like installing a different OS. That was kinda of topic right?

Fine, I have this to say: the state of Linux config files is a mess - every program has a different syntax for it's config files in /etc, just to configure your system you need to learn three dozen different syntax rules. Hell the larger programs have a different syntax for every one of their config files (X comes to mind), and to make matters worse, many apps now have XML based config files (fontconfig, gnome, gtk+, xfce4) which is a terrible way to configure your system. That's the number one problem I think - a lack of consistency and that needs to be resolved if one expects widespread adoption of Linux.

Obviously Windows is target for a lot of viruses. Since they more than 90% of the market and Linux not even 1% sure viruses is on Windows side. BEsides, many viruses are written by Zeals who just plain hate windows.

But if Linux (not very likely as it will allways be 5 years behind) ever see a market share of let's say 20%, viruses will become a lot more common. Just like viruses for MacOS has been a smallish problem, this is something that comes with market share.

I think the point of installation which also people keep buggering about is sort of silly. To maintain a Linux system is simply hell, and Windows feels easy. Joe Sixpack doesn't care if things get left behind in registry.

The good thing though about Virus for Windows is that it's quite obvious where you should go to solve the problem. WIth Linux, you don't have a damn clue whatsoever what to do. That wouldn't just concern viruses, that would concern pretty much whatever happens.

Can your girlfriend reconfigure and recompile her kernel to improve boot time?

What makes a Windows file system clearer than Linux's? Habit or better design? Perhaps you should ask yourself that.
And as for the installation, apart from the partition bit - and most (I haven't tried all distros so I won't say all) distros have an automatic partition utility - I don't see any stumbling blocks with Linux installations. Besides, it is an oft repeated fact but important nevertheless, a typical Linux distro consists of far more software - from Office suites to advanced networking tools - than a Windows installation; how many reboots does Windows take before the same or similar amount of programmes are installed? Unless one's happy working with Word/Notepad I don't see a typical home Windows installation being functional without additional software being added.

[i]

I agree with the author, every OS has its flaws. Now whether those flaws cause you not to use an OS for certain things is personal preference.

Every OS has flaws. Windows has them, Linux does, BSD does, MacOS does, OS/2 does, BeOS does, etc, etc...

There's always going to be issues with every operating system, but that doesn't mean that people shouldn't use them. We should use what works best for us and the situation we want to use it in.

Like Windows... I know I don't agree with Microsoft business practices at all, I hate Microsoft, I dislike Gates as well, but I use Windows here.

I also use Linux and OS/2 on a daily basis. and I've played with quite a few other operating systems.

All of them have "issues" which drive me crazy sometimes. But that doesn't make them bad operating systems.

I take a neutral position when it comes to operating systems and platforms. It does do any good to argue about the subject.

I think the author was right... Windows isn't hell nor is Linux bliss.

Every OS I've used seems to be a combination of both hell and bliss.

There's always going to be "issues".

You are clearly incompetent on the matter and do not seem to understand the least how viruses work.

Your attack on "Zeals" making virus to attack windows users is silly, gratuitious, and unfounded.

I would also like to know how "Linux [...] will allways be 5 years behind". What is your evaluation procedure and how do you obtain a score in years?

Other unsubstantiated claims :

"To maintain a Linux system is simply hell, and Windows feels easy".
For a complete beginner, there is no difference. Being a competent windows administrator takes time, experience and documentation. So is it with Linux. Maybe a new windows users have a better illusion of control than linux users. This should be analysed in details before any claim can be made.

"Joe Sixpack doesn't care if things get left behind in registry."
Maybe Joe Sixpack suffer from a lack of information from his software company.

"The good thing though about Virus for Windows is that it's quite obvious where you should go to solve the problem. WIth Linux, you don't have a damn clue whatsoever what to do. That wouldn't just concern viruses, that would concern pretty much whatever happens."
The only obvious clue what to do when something goes wrong with windows is "Hit the reset button". It is a blessing that doing so solves over 50% of windows problems. But you usually do not have any clue how the solve the other 50% of problems until you go through a serious troubleshooting process. Linux problems are solved the same way, by troubleshooting them seriously.

Have you heard of the story of the donkey, the man and his son? One day, a man, his son and their donkey were travelling to a city. They all set off one foot one early morning. After having walked several hours, they reached the first neighbouring town. 'The gods be praised.', the people of the town clamored. 'Where I are from you and where are you headed?', they asked invitingly. 'We are from the neighbouring town and we are heading four towns away from this.', they responded.

'What idiots!', the people of the town retorted. 'You have a donkey and you walked all the way here on foot?!?' 'Surely the gods have cursed you.' The man and son pondered upon their stupidity, and decided to board the donkey on the next journey to the next town. The next morning they travelled on the donkey to the next town.

As they crossed the next town, the inhabitants muttered, 'Poor donkey; these two heartless souls sitting on a poor donkey.' 'How mean of them.' The man and the son pondered over their cruelty and decided on the next journey only the man will ride the donkey, while the son walks. That'll be less cruel on the animal they thought.

In the next town they were met with similar contempt. 'What kind of father let's his son suffer while he lavishes in comfort on top of a donkey?', the towns people angrily retorted. The father thought of his selfishness and suggested the son ride the donkey to the next town.

The hostility didn't get any better. 'Disrespecful kid', the people of the next town wailed. 'Your father has seen many years than you have, has worn more rags than you have and has been kind enough to bring you to life, yet you treat him with disdain while you travel comfortably on the donkey'. 'May you be cursed', the angry inhabitants shouted.

The moral of the story, Linux can't please the whole world. Also be kind enough to read my response on your first article titled "THE MASSES CAN GO TO HELL" That about somes it up.

I've found the linux file system to be more intuitive and better organised than Windows XP and it predecessors. The Reiser, ext3, XFS, JFS are all faster than NTFS and they hardly fragment like NTFS, FAT or FAT32 do.

My Gentoo Linux box boots up faster than my Windows XP machine. If you are so disgruntled about certain things in Linux the most productive and honorable way of going about it is to start a project to correct what you think are the defficiencies. Linux will never be windows or copy it. Linux will never be MacOS or copy it. To acknowledge that, is the to begin to understand the wisdom of Linux.

By the way, have you ever tried searching for binaries or executables in Windows? Are you telling me it's easier than searching /bin or /usr/bin? How about .dlls? Are you telling me it's easier than /lib or /usr/lib.

Friend, you need to come to terms with Linux. Bootup time, placement of files and filesystems hardly qualify as the problems facing Linux as it were today. In some instances, they are its merits.

Regards,

Mystilleef

It's almost analogous of someone posting a why a Ford truck isn't Bliss or why a Dodge truck isn't on a redneck forum.

The implication that truck enthusiasts are all "rednecks" ?

Linux already has high market penetration in servers, so why haven't we seen a horde of viruses unleashed to attack servers running Apache?

Its probably because linux has more protection against such things. The system being naturally more secure probably has a bit to do. But the rest has to do with Linux having enough diversity that there will never be as many machines to be infected.

A single virus could wipe out all Windows installs, but a single virus wouldn't nescesarily effect Redhat, Suse, Mandrake, Gentoo, and Slack. In computing as with life, no genetic diversity is a bad thing.

As in any religion. (sect?)

Please explain why Windows users need to search for DLLs.

And applications make these handy shortcuts and entries on the start menu.

Can Virii be counted as Open-source software ?

The author writes...

" But for some (or a lot, I do not know) people, Linux has not been all that good. And to dismiss those people by saying "They should read a manual", "They will learn it, over time" and so on,..."

But this is almost exactly what many (not all) Windows enthusiasts say when one points out a Windows installation that boots slowly, or crashes often. It's always, "well, you installed it wrong" "your hardware is no good" "you have to know what you are doing".

This is why I claim that Window's alledged hardware compatibility and esse of installation are myths. Why is it the on the very same computer Windows chokes on configuring a video card, printer, scanner, dsl internet connection when Knoppix does not? Using the same logic as the author "...Well, if I find those things annoying, uneasy, or just plain stupid, then sure as a rock there are people who agree with me..." if I find these problems with Windows, then sure as a rock there are people who agree with me.

The problem here is that the author takes generalities and drews conclusions from them (something that is done by many of all persuasions). From the author's second article...

"...I know for sure that if I would ask some of my computer-illiterate friends to install both Windows and Linux, they would say that Windows was easier to install. So I am talking about the newbie here..."

That may be, but do your friends represent a random sample? Maybe they do, maybe they do not. I can show a group of people with little computer systems knowledge that have had nothing but trouble installing Windows XP and getting it to work properly. I can tell you that when the operating system is unable to configure your hardware (as Windows XP was for mine), the operating system that does do it without asking any questions (Knoppix) is far easier to install. But this is not enough to conclude that one is universally easy to install than the other.

This is not to suggest that Linux is better than Windows. Just that this author has stumbled into a disseration that exhibits the very problems that the author objects to. Just substitute lauding features of Windows (that are not universally appreaciated or experienced) instead of features of Linux (that are not universally appreaciated or experienced).

In attempting to display the faults in the evidence of superiority of Linux by its proponents, the author has provided the equivalent for an alternative operating system (although unintentionally). But maybe that was the point in the first place. Illustrate obsurdity by being obsurd.

The implication that many rednecks are truck enthusiasts. Your logic skills need some fine tuning.

Please explain why linux users need to search for libs.

And applications make these handy entries in the Applications menu in Gnome.

"Me? I have a computer so I can be productive, not so I can be an administrator. Therefore, there are distros like SuSE and Mandrake for me."

I am an administrator, and desktop user. I used slackware for my desktop OS back when I started with Linux.

"Unfortunately, he (like so many others) takes a stance that I truly do not understand: that the "easier" distros are ruining all the fun."

Did I say anything about ruining 'fun' - I am talking about Linux. If you can't install Mandrake, read a manual. If you can't understand Slackware, read a manual. If you can't set your VCR clock, read a manual. But if we continue to remove the features which set Linux as LINUX and not Linux trying to be Windows, at what point does it even matter? It should matter, just like Mac OS isn't Linux, Mac OS isn't Windows, Windows isn't QNX... and so on goes the string. Please don't planet ideas that I didn't say. Making things easier, doesn't make it less fun.

I don't think so. (Period).

Wrong! Some applications make an entry in the Gnome menu, some make it in the KDE menu, some make it in both, and some make it in neither.

She doesn't complain nearly as much as the writer of this artical. Unlike the people who think that Linux HAS TO boot faster then Windows, to make it better then Windows... she accepts what she runs and doesn't bitch because she can't talk on AIM 5 seconds faster then Windows XP. For a NEWBIE article, why dwell on something like BOOT time, everyone knows its relative to what your hardware is, what your kernel is, what your system starting processes are, etc. Atleast the directory and other gripes were warrented to question.

Linux already has high market penetration in servers, so why haven't we seen a horde of viruses unleashed to attack servers running Apache?

I would imagine that most people writing Windows virii/worms are actually using Windows desktops, so it makes more sense to program on platforms that you are familiar.
If you were to go back and look at all the hacking/cracking tutorials on the Internet in the early-to-mid 90s (back when the Internet was mostly the domain of Unix gurus and before hacking Windows became a professional sport), you'd find that almost every single one of them were for Unix.

Please excuse me, I only use Gnome applications, on my gnome desktop. KDE apps are added in thier own subfolders at the bottom of the applications menu in gnome, I have no idea what KDE does since I haven't used it in a while.

She doesn't complain nearly as much as the writer of this artical[sic].

Well, I probably wouldn't complain much either if I had you around to show me what to do when shit doesn't work right.

Also, when you talk about 'dumbing down' the OS for newbies, you seem to have this mentality that "Well, since I had to do it this way, everyone else should too." That reminds me of somebody's grandpa saying "Yeah, when I was your age, I had to walk to school butt naked through 90 miles of snow."

The argument about boot time being different on different configs doesn't go; Of course I ment the diff's on a single config.

Do I have to spell everything out?

Please explain why Windows users need to search for DLLs.

Good question, but I'm suprised you asked. There have been instances I've been plagued by 'Missing *.dll error' errors. Most users who have used Windows Long enough now what I'm talking about. When did you say you started using Windows again?

[b]And applications make these handy shortcuts and entries on the start menu.[b]

Yes, and if you've used Windows long enough, you most have experienced broken shortcut links both in the start menu and program files. In which case you begin a hunt to see if the executable is present at all in C:Progam FilesName of Filesearch a bunch or randomly ordered files.

I've never experienced broken links or missing libraries to begin with in Linux. But their instances when I'd love to launch a program both I errorneously use the programs wrong launch name. For example to launch xchat version 2, I can need to type xchat-2 and not xchat or xchat2. In such instance I find easier to search /usr/bin for the executable real name. Try that on windows, and tell me it isn't messier.

Single configuration... of a Linux system... GOOD LUCK. If you are going to tell me that, then where are the system specs, your kernel config, and your init.d scripts, what your kernel has been patched with, on and on? How am I POSSIBLY suppose to make a fair judgement if your opinion isn't factually supported. I am sorry if you want to TELL ME that windows boots faster, SHOW ME it does. 'One onethousand.... two onethousand...'

Yes, I had to show her around how to click the foot on GNOME and find the internet utilities category for GAIM. PHEW!

Forgive my typos, I was in a rush. It would be nice to have a preview button and some spell checker utility on osnews. :-) Don't you all agree?

Regards,

Mystilleef

Single configuration... of a Linux system... GOOD LUCK. If you are going to tell me that, then where are the system specs, your kernel config, and your init.d scripts, what your kernel has been patched with, on and on? How am I POSSIBLY suppose to make a fair judgement if your opinion isn't factually supported. I am sorry if you want to TELL ME that windows boots faster, SHOW ME it does. 'One onethousand.... two onethousand...'

If you were to compare a Linux distribution to Windows, you would pick one that is similar to Windows is usability, installation, and what have you. Thus, a distribution with a home-configured/-patched kernel, initscripts, etc.
I believe a fair pick would be Mandrake. And it certainly isn't booting as fast as Windows XP.
In fact, though you probably won't accept it as an argument, my Gentoo installation boots a little slower than my Windows XP installation (on the same machine). The Gentoo installation has everything optimized 110%, all sorts of performance-improving patches for the kernel (and X and so on), and it's still that little tad slower... (booting, not in operation) And no, of course I don't count in Apache and MySQL...

Of course, if you have the technical ability, you can make Linux work waay faster than any Windows installation... But few people have. As someone said earlier, not everyone bothers to take the time installing a Slackware, Debian (not the worst), Gentoo, [insert average geek distribution here]. Yes, if you can't figure out how to install Slackware, read a manual... But there is so much less manual-reading needed to install Mandrake, Red Hat, or Windows. Why? Because everything doesn't have to be configured. It is done automatically. Joe Sixpack doesn't like to tell his computer which kind of computer it is, he just wants it to do what he tells it to. Nothing more, nothing less.

- Simon

Thus, a distribution with a home-configured/-patched kernel, initscripts, etc.
Of course, I meant without... I'm in for the preview-button thing... ;-)

- Simon

Mystileef, then we can agree to just have had different experiences. I have had the exact opposite experience you have (and since you asked, I have been using Windows since 3.1). I have never had any problems with DLLs with the exception of a single VB utility that did not come with a proper installer, and I have never had a game or application install broken menu entries with windows (although I have in Linux- Mandrake 8.2 had broken menus with the default install).

There is some truth to the fact that if more systems exist, more will potentially be hacked. Viruses will never be the problem on Linux that it is on Windows since it has much stricter permissions to run programs. If you write an email virus you would need to get someone to execute the program by choice rather than active-x. Then it may work in kmail, but people are running evolution, pine, mutt, mozilla mail or any number of other programs to read their mail. It is possible to write a Linux virus but they will be more easily contained.

Also, if being more popular is the only reason for more viruses or hacks, then why is IIS hit more often than Apache?

By Vargasan (IP: ---.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) properly noted:

"Although I never experienced a single virus in my life (and I do not run a virus scanner, isn't that a miracle?), it is of course unquestionably true."

"Without a virus scanner, how do you know if you don't have a virus or not? Not all viruses are blatant and right in your face."

He doesn't know--as his offerings attest, he is a novice computer user.

I don't disagree with you. I believe you Gentoo boots a little slower, I also belive my Debian boots a little faster, neither of us probably care that much. It's not wise to compare boot time between two operating systems period is the POINT I guess.

My take is that if people WANT a system that can boot faster, it can. If they don't care, like as in above whatever amount of posts, like my girlfriend, they live with it because it really doesn't matter. I just think it's a bad idea to CLAIM one thing, and not give proof, nor care to give any factually based information why you would say such a thing, or make a comparision like that in the first place, I still think he was stretching for a paragraph to write.

Bill Gates doesn't have to lift a finger to crush linux on the desktop, because so many people in the linux community are doing his job *for* him.

To think that we've got a bunch of folks who are internal to the linux community running around yelling "RTFM" and "the problem is that people don't want to learn" and "linux being hard-to-use is pure FUD" and " 'Usability' is BS. Don't dumb down linux", and all the while we're concerned about some silly external threat like SCO and it's impact on people adopting linux.

Well, I have been using Linux for a year now. I'm currently running Slack 9 and have tried just about every distro. Now I would like to bring forth my option about Linux and Window...

I'm gonna present my views as an experienced user because I don't believe in asking everyone to switch to Linux- its your choice and well, if you decide to try it, good luck with and hope you'll stay with the club!

1) Windows sux at multitasking- When you have some apps which consume a lot of resources or somthing that is heavily reading/writing files to your HD, the GUI responsiveness goes down to like 20 % Whereas in Linux, if you have a good kernel (I use the ck3 patch for 2.4.21), the GUI is about 90% responsive....low latency anyone?

2) Fun - to me, Linux is more fun because you get to play around and tweak stuff- its just my nature to mess with things and see how they work.

3) Feel Different- Hey, I can brag to my friends that I, unlike 85% of the masses, am using Linux :-D

4) Gotta love the console- do I need to say more? (with tab- autocompletion)

So, I don't hate Windows- I respect it for it makes some stuff easier, but my "Preference" is Linux...and I use Linux 99.9% of the time.

The author of the article has done a wonderful job and I would like to thank him for the same.

"I'm a die-hard Linux user" :-D

Lorm! Again you don't read!

Look at the posts! You'd notice I made a response already! God!

Is it really that hard to read? I'm not even gonna post it again for you-- You are making yourself completely ridiculous this way. Note that other's didn't comment on it anymore!

My God...

Who said our community cares whether Bill Gates loses money or not? Our community just wants to use what we like. If others want to use Linux, go ahead. There are thousands of learning resources (incl. articls here) which help them. 'RTFM' isn't the nicest way to put it, but since when did reading the documenation associated with a product make you LESS intelligent?

I don't care if you run Windows or Linux. Please don't assume everyone on Linux even remembers the last time they used a Windows machine at home or work, because some of us do not. Why do you have to interject that we all want Bill Gates to see failure? I want him to use his power and fortune to release quality products and set standards which I can associate with. The new windows looks promising (longhorn I believe it is).

Your article could have been written without reference to windows at all, and would have cuased a lot less flame and might have generated some usefull commentary. You do not favor windows over Linux but have more issues with Linux than with windows. So write an article called "Timely Linux Questions for All Time" and detail therin all of your issues. Do so in a fashion that encourages suggestions. You are not the first with these issues, you will not be the last. I am ready for your third try.

To think that we've got a bunch of folks who are internal to the linux community running around yelling "RTFM" and "the problem is that people don't want to learn" and "linux being hard-to-use is pure FUD" and " 'Usability' is BS. Don't dumb down linux", and all the while we're concerned about some silly external threat like SCO and it's impact on people adopting linux.

There are actually people in the Linux 'community' (and I use the word loosely) who don't want Linux to grow because they're afraid their exclusive tree-house club will become tainted by popularity.

Here are some of the author's statements from the original article:

1. Linux would be all "bliss" if we forget the slow boot-up/shutdown times...

Only a user who constantly reboots or shuts down a machine would even comment on this. Maybe it is just me but I don't ever turn my computers off. And as noted by others, this statement does not apply to Gentoo.

2. ...if we forget the lousy hardware support for, let's say, Ati products

Try to install certain webcams, along with certain other pieces of hardware, in Windows XP and you have the same problem, so what does this statement prove, if anything?

3. ... if we forget the "geek" image of Linux

Which Linux has the "geek" image? Is it Xandros, Lindows, Mandrake, ELX or what? I better tell that to my friend who switched from AOL on Windows 95 to Mandrake 7.0 on Earthlink all those years ago. She will be quite surprised to learn she is a geek.

4. ...if we forget the fact that some distributions suddenly have to be paid for

Oh you mean some Linux distros have to be paid for, just like Windows XP? Again, the point of this statement is what? What does it prove?

5. ...if we forget that some distributions suddenly get discontinued

Oh you mean like how Windows 3.1 & 95 got discontinued?

6. ...if we forget the crappy way software is installed

Okay, first of all, configure, make & make install works on every distro I have ever used. Yeah I know that you may not have all dependencies installed, which means it won't always work, but that is what devel-rpms and devel-debs are for. But even if we ignore this information, tools such as apt-get and urpmi are far too useful to be called crappy.

Now these 6 statements were taken from the second paragraph of the orginal article. After reading that particular paragraph, I read no further and did not read the comments either, having seen the original article for what it was, a troll.

Now the author writes a second article, decrying the fact that he was flamed. He is either misinformed, or trolling a second time, at the reader's expense.

I suppose you mean "viruses". Virii means something totally different. This is a common mistake.

Sorry, I'm not English. Viruses sounded kinda stupid. And since I had Latin in school I thought "Virii" sounded pretty smart

point 1:
Every windows system I've seen seems to load a bunch of stuff after one has logged in, including networking, plus all the other crap that goes in the system tray, while a *nix system tends to load (virtually) everything before login.

point 2:
You actually mean the file layout standards used, not the FSs themselves. In that case, one word: "PROGRA~1". They couldn't just call it "Programs"? it's even an 8-letter word! I agree that the traditional *nix way of installing can cause scattered-file-hell, but I would venture to say that the BeOS FS layout scheme reached just about perfection in clarity. Also, drive letters suck, and I've read they are finally going away (well, hidden) in Longhorn.

point 3:
Most users don't install the OS themselves. If a user is competent enough to install and OS himself, then he can probably figure out the fun GUI linux installers that come with most distros. Really, I'm no newb, and I've had a number of problems with Windows installs from 95 up to XP, from crashes to stalls.

...we are seeing why Linux advocates will play very little part in the success of Linux on the desktop. Thankfully, the OSS coders working on the kernel and the mountain of apps available for Linux don't have the time to screech every time someone dares make a positive statement about Windows. The original article was dead on, and this guy shouldn't have felt it necessary to write a follow-up addressing the egos rumpled by the first one.

The vast majority of people using computers use it for a purpose. It helps them complete some task that would otherwise be much more difficult, i.e., spreadsheets, word processors, databases, etc. They neither "love" or "hate" Windows or Linux. For Linux to have mass market success, it will have to be usable by these people. If the underemployed geek sector of the economy wants to gnash their teeth about "dumbing down" Linux for newbies, they will simply be dumbing themselves out of future employment.

In short, I think Linux advocates have far too much time on their hands. Time that could better be spent coding and improving Linux.

Now these 6 statements were taken from the second paragraph of the orginal article. After reading that particular paragraph, I read no further and did not read the comments either, having seen the original article for what it was, a troll.

A troll? I think not! The author is simply explaining his opinions on different matters (which you may would have understood completely if you did read the whole article).

1. (already commented)
2. Compared to Windows, not nearly as many hardware devices are supported. This is, however, not Linux's fault, as a lot of drivers for Windows are developed by third party vendors (e.g. those who created the hardware in the first place). As Linux isn't quite as widely used, hardware vendors have not yet prioritized the development of Linux drivers very high... The will change, hopefully...
3. Using another OS than the one that was shipped with the computer is geekish, like it or not... In order to install a new operating system you need to have certain technical skills... Not to mention that (almost) only geeks would be unsatisfied with Windows.
4. I think it is the "suddenly" part that is the focus, not the "paid for" part... First it's free, then you have to pay for it, suddenly... That's not a healthy policy.
5. (no comment)
6. Agreed, software installation on some Linux distributions is 'crappy'... However, things like Portage (emerge), Debian's apt-get and Mandrake's urpmi are far superior to Windows' InstallShield thing, as they keep total control over every (every!) file installed in a central place, making maintaining installed software a breeze...

Now the author writes a second article, decrying the fact that he was flamed. He is either misinformed, or trolling a second time, at the reader's expense.
In fact, no one asked you to read the article... But since that's a lousy argument, I must say that I think it is justifiable to 'cry' about being flamed, as it is a very childish way of performing your opinions and shouldn't be exercised at all, especially not in supposedly mature boards like this one... (oh well)

- Simon

"we are seeing why Linux advocates will play very little part in the success of Linux on the desktop"

True. Linux will rise due to corporate use, then the workers will want to have it at home.

"Thankfully, the OSS coders working on the kernel and the mountain of apps available for Linux don't have the time to screech every time someone dares make a positive statement about Windows"

A positive statement about Windows !=FUD about Linux, which is what we are combatting here.

"and this guy shouldn't have felt it necessary to write a follow-up addressing the egos rumpled by the first one. "

Trolls always generate heavy responses.

"For Linux to have mass market success, it will have to be usable by these people."

I see, Linux is not yet usable by these people. Better tell that to Burlington since they have it on the desktop now, and lo and behold! It is already usable!

"In short, I think Linux advocates have far too much time on their hands. Time that could better be spent coding and improving Linux."

And the Windows trolls couldn't possibly have too much time on their hands, could they? And could their time be better spent plugging/finding security holes in Windows?

Say, are you related to the author of this article?

//Obviously Windows is target for a lot of viruses. Since they more than 90% of the market and Linux not even 1% sure viruses is on Windows side. BEsides, many viruses are written by Zeals who just plain hate windows.//

This is a common misconception. Most people write viruses to take down servers not someone's home machine. There is no fun in that. Unix/Linux/BSD owns the server market, espicially webservers yet more windows machines get hacked and get infected with viruses. Windows is too careless in letting arbitrary code to run. This along with the tight integration between several programs (office, outlook, ie) and the kernel creates a perfect breeding ground for viruses.

//But if Linux (not very likely as it will allways be 5 years behind) ever see a market share of let's say 20%, viruses will become a lot more common. Just like viruses for MacOS has been a smallish problem, this is something that comes with market share.//

Linux is not 5 years behind, not even close to it. It is very much on the same level if not better. I believe that some of the easier distributions are just as easy to use and install as Windows. That's besides the point though. What is more advanced about the Windows kernel that the Linux kernel is 5 years behind?

//I think the point of installation which also people keep buggering about is sort of silly. To maintain a Linux system is simply hell, and Windows feels easy. Joe Sixpack doesn't care if things get left behind in registry.//

Do you have any experience with maintaining a Linux machine? I left windows because of the maintnence issues. Maybe your experience has been better but that doesn't make it fact. For me Windows has destroyed my computer several times. Many programs won't uninstall, dll's from other software break the system, and programs tend to always find a way into the system tray. Inexperienced users never delete any of the 50 million icons off of the desktop and they never remove items from the system tray. After a while the system becomes unusuable. I love trying out new programs but with windows it's not a good idea to install and uninstall programs over and over unless you plan on doing a reinstall of the entire OS. That has been my experience and the biggest reason for my switch.

//The good thing though about Virus for Windows is that it's quite obvious where you should go to solve the problem. WIth Linux, you don't have a damn clue whatsoever what to do. That wouldn't just concern viruses, that would concern pretty much whatever happens.//

Where do you go for viruses? If you have thrid party software that will help you, until your subscription expires. Most people never update their subscription. On the other hand there is always a place to go when you have a problem with Linux. It's called the internet. It works wonders when you have a problem. You can even get a hold of a real live guru on IRC if you need to.

If we compare Windows and Linux to cars, I think that the choice is evident.

The Windows car :

- Automatic (Wich reflect the ease of use).
- Sometimes stops without any reason.
- Goes at a correct speed.
- You can't do any internal modifications. (Good for ordinary people)
- Just a little bunch of models.

Price : about 300 $ (Add more cash for every ad-on)

The Linux car :

- Build on a better standard than the Windows one.
- Manual (I mean by that less facility of use at the begening).
- A choice of a lot of models.
- Goes at a correct speed.
- You can do any internal modification.

Price : Free !! (Add-on are free also)

So if you have the choice between two products that are comparable when we talk of quality but one of them is free, I think that the choice is evident.

..basically the author has nothing new or interesting to say; he just was irritated by the criticism meted out to his article when it ran. Eugenia, I love OSNews, but even on a slow news day this has no place on the site. It's just a catalog of poorly-thought-out critiques and whining that the posters here are linux snobs. I'm a strong advocate of the "linux != panacaea" point-of-view, but this guy's attempt to make his point embarasses all of us.

KOMPRESSOR

I wish I could have written an article like this one. Your are the second person in my life I've seen writing an article about windows and linux and being neutral. Good work and everything you says is true, absolutly true. I used so much distribution and this is the same details which makes me choose windows after all. Boot slow, lack in standards (interfaces), not intuivite, programs takes time to start (Like open office). I dream about the day you will buy a computer and you will hear "Windows Or Linux". This will be great. But, unfortunatly, the Linux community must answer a simple question : "Do you really want this ?". I think most pple use linux because it makes the ego feel well like ("I'm a better computer user, I use linux! With linux I have to configure everything myself which makes me a better computer user than windows user cause windows is "too eazy".) If the linux community REALLY wants to see linux as high as windows for desktop use, you'll to know that linux will have to be easy as windows or easier or a lot less expencive. Anyway, If I have some reply like "your are too much inexperienced, it will only show everything I said about the ego thing is true.

Good Work Thom "Slakje" Holwerda, I'll be glad to see other article like this one.

// I would imagine that most people writing Windows virii/worms are actually using Windows desktops, so it makes more sense to program on platforms that you are familiar.
If you were to go back and look at all the hacking/cracking tutorials on the Internet in the early-to-mid 90s (back when the Internet was mostly the domain of Unix gurus and before hacking Windows became a professional sport), you'd find that almost every single one of them were for Unix.//

All 10 of them huh? Nothing like the thousands for Windows.

Windows XP does have a nice boot time... mind you this is for it's BOOT -- however, it continues loading things AFTER you're on the system. I've notice this and find it a great deal more annoying because my system pretty much stops responding for a few minutes after it has "booted" -- until all this stuff gets loaded, and while I can sit and stare at my desktop, it's unable to use until everything is fully loaded (at least use properly). What I would see as a very interesting project is the removal of INIT from Linux on a distro... WHAT YOU SAY!#%!#%!#$@^@$^!#$^ Yeah, why the hell not? Why not have your login manager as the first thing executed after you boot up? Then services can be started and stopped according to what user you choose or what environment. My kernel goes from load to init in maybe a few seconds... X takes all of a few more to start up, so I'd probably be seeing a login screen in about 6 or 7 seconds on my system if this were the case. Furthermore, Linux seems to load things post boot more efficiently than Windows -- and I don't tend to see any huge drop in desktop responsiveness -- thus, loading daemons and services that my specific user account is designed to load, I'd be able to not only config what gets loaded per user but I'd be able to begin using things immediately.

Furthermore, as I said you could have environments -- login managers could easily add some sort of profile for various environments: IE: server, desktop, development station etc... all services being loaded when the user logs on, and killed when the user logs off, thus, if server environment is choses, the argument that boot time doesn't matter because of infiinite uptime truly starts to make sense. -- then again, I don't run a server with X anyway, but some people do, and this would make perfect sense.

What's wrong with your article is that you say Linux, which is a kernel, and compare it to Windows.

1) My Linux boots faster than any Windows box. The kernel is up in a split second. I agree with your observation that most distributions have chosen a traditional unix-like startup which takes quite some time. It is not difficult, however, to use another init-script which boots exactly as fast as you want. Try doing that with a MS Windows distribution!

2) Then why don't you use GNU Stow or any similar packing system which arranges files that way? The Red Hat way is a feature! You're not supposed to access the application files directly through the file system utilities but with the rpm (or dpkg for Debian) utility. If you don't like that you are free to use anything else.

3) I simply do not believe that Windows installation is simpler than a modern Linux distribution. I suspect you haven't tried this on your friends at all, at least not during the last year.

Please don't be offended by this; but it would be better for all of us if you could think through your articles properly. Please see Kuro5hin for a good example on how to write article that catches people's interest. I understand you are very young and it is exciting to read your stuff "in print" but you will get much better response if you write more throughly.

The points against linux I disagree with. Not that I'm a zealot, I just beleive you haven't looked at everything that's available.
1. -Windows boots faster than Linux-
If you take most of the services out of Linux, ones that Windows doesn't come with (like apache, sendmail, chron [don't take this one out though, it's very usefull], portmap, so on) you'll see Linux booting up very quickly. Also if you change KDE to something very lightweight, or even the console, it will be lightning fast.

2. -Windows file system is clearer than Linux'-
I'm not very sure about that. It took a while to get used to, that's true, but I prefer the Linux version. There's something to be said for apropos, and infoman. And having everything in 1 folder makes finding things much faster then in windows, you only have to search though 1 folder-worth of files to find what you need. Not all of Program Files.
It's comparable to people who are new to Windows having to get used to clicking Start to shut the computer down. It's just a different way of doing things, and a person can prefer one or the other.

3. -Windows installation is easier than Linux'-
Lwindows. It's so much simpler to install then windows, it's not funny. (literally 3 clicks to install it) Even the programs are much simpler to install using their click and run (never used it.. just from reviews). Windows installation is generally a horrible and grusome process for me personally. I have my own company building computers, and many windows installations, especially upgrades go astray.

Linux viruses will never be as potent as windows ones. Unless you're running root, which is really not recommended, they will only affect files the user in question has access to. That's why it's good to make an acct. with very few priviledges for regular use.

I think the main problem with Linux is a lack of easy program installation (except for Lwindows, but you need to pay $4 something monthly for that).
An even bigger problem are zealots. That refuse to answer questions, and present people with a 'RTFM'. Most people aren't used to that, and we where all Linux newbies at one time (well.. except for Linus).
So in the future when you see a person ask you, 'Where is MS office in linux' just answer kindly, and move along.

My experience is that Linux can be tweaked to load and to run desktop apps faster than Windows XP. (hdparm, kernel recompiling, etc.) Actually, the only reason why I haven't formatted Windows from my hd is that most of the computer games I have bought only run under Windows.

On the other hand, tweaking Linux and finding out which distros, desktop environments, window managers, or applications you like best can be the most fascinating computer game ever invented. I think that many people love to play the problem solving game called Linux and this may also be why Linux advocates tend to be so passionate about their OS.

Quote (Jonas B.):

"What's wrong with your article is that you say Linux, which is a kernel, and compare it to Windows."

People always bring up this argument in Linux VS Windows debates. When people refer to 'Linux' and compare it to Windows, it is understood that what is being referred to is Linux as an operating system; the common collection of software thrown together by distributors.

"1) My Linux boots faster than any Windows box. The kernel is up in a split second. I agree with your observation that most distributions have chosen a traditional unix-like startup which takes quite some time. It is not difficult, however, to use another init-script which boots exactly as fast as you want. Try doing that with a MS Windows distribution!"

Ok, I'll agree with you that the _kernel_ boots quickly, but how do you know the Windows _kernel_ doesn't boot just as quickly? Secondly, I'd like to see how some default init scripts could be custom-tailored to match the loading speed of Windows _while_ retaining a reasonable amount of functionality for desktop usage. (I'm not saying this is impossible - I'd be interested if someone who did it could show me.) Also, the point is that Linux systems generally boot slower out of the box than Windows systems. No modification should be necessary to have Linux boot faster. If it indeed is capable of booting faster while maintaining its current functionality, why haven't I see it yet?

"2) Then why don't you use GNU Stow or any similar packing system which arranges files that way? The Red Hat way is a feature! You're not supposed to access the application files directly through the file system utilities but with the rpm (or dpkg for Debian) utility. If you don't like that you are free to use anything else."

If you organize files in a different format from the Linux norm, chances are you'll run into problems sooner or later when a program tries to install itself into the default locations. Then you'll have inconsistency with some of your packages installed one way and some installed the other way. Also, suppose your package manager somehow failed to install a package, or you have some commercial software which uses its own custom installer (and doesn't have an uninstaller). Now it will take more work to identify and delete each individual file of the package, because it is scattered throughout the file system. Compare this to just deleting a package's directory. This is the advantage.

"3) I simply do not believe that Windows installation is simpler than a modern Linux distribution. I suspect you haven't tried this on your friends at all, at least not during the last year."

You are only somewhat correct. There are tons Linux distributions whose installers require much more user knowledge/input than an install of Microsoft's latest offering, XP. Admittedly, some installers (LindowsOS, Xandros come to mind here) require even less technical know-how than XP's installer, but those types of distributions are far fewer in number.

Warning: Today I'm pissed so I may get in you face

I didn't bother reading the bloody coments (exept the first) but hers mine.

I HATE Windows and Linux ( if you care why, it's explained here http://madalien.com/archive/000038.html ) but personal view aside i still find increadible how some people defend their "side", there isn't a single OS in the world that ALL people will like, and that's what the author is trying to say (if not the stupid me).
If works for you it works for you, that doesn't say jack about everybody else some people will always more of the good other will see more of the bad becouse all OS's have them.

And for the Linux worshipers: PEOPLE SHOULDN'T NEED TO BE ROCKET CIENTISTS TO HAVE A GOOD TIME USING A COMPUTER did i make my self clear? so no more talking about those dam kernel recompile, config file messing or whatever you pour bastard think everybody should know how to do.

PS: And if all you gona do is say my speeling is bad don't even botter.

Computers aren't toasters. They do 1000x more things. Don't expect them to be as easy.

Yeah, everyone knows how to use a TV, but can they fix it? Most likely not. You can easily teach someone to use any operating system, but if theres a problem,thats when they have to have some knowledge.

Quote (T'Eval):

"If you take most of the services out of Linux, ones that Windows doesn't come with (like apache, sendmail, chron [don't take this one out though, it's very usefull], portmap, so on)"

Windows XP by default also has some default startup services that are not strictly necessary for a desktop system. Also, I would not say that /most/ of the Linux services are unnecessary, as I've tried removing unnecessary services before, but the resulting boot time still does not match Windows. In addition, desktop-oriented Linux distributions should already have such non-desktop services removed from boot, although I find that even desktop Linux distributions are slower than Windows in boot.

" you'll see Linux booting up very quickly. Also if you change KDE to something very lightweight, or even the console, it will be lightning fast."

Sure, you could say that swapping KDE with something like Fluxbox or simply the console would make it lightning fast, but you could also describe it as "doesn't have many features." A typical response to this is that much of the functionality is unnecessary and creates bloat - while this may be true for a good portion of KDE, there are features that are convenient to have, some that are aesthetically pleasing, and others that genuinely contribute to greater productivity.

"2. -Windows file system is clearer than Linux'-
I'm not very sure about that. It took a while to get used to, that's true, but I prefer the Linux version. There's something to be said for apropos, and infoman. And having everything in 1 folder makes finding things much faster then in windows, you only have to search though 1 folder-worth of files to find what you need. Not all of Program Files.
It's comparable to people who are new to Windows having to get used to clicking Start to shut the computer down. It's just a different way of doing things, and a person can prefer one or the other."

There are aspects that give one way advantages over another, above a simple user preference. Consider the manual uninstallation dilemma I touched on in my prior comment - this exploits a nice trait of the "put all package files in one directory" approach - you do not have to know each individual file of the package to manually remove it - just the package directory.

"3. -Windows installation is easier than Linux'-
Lwindows. It's so much simpler to install then windows, it's not funny. (literally 3 clicks to install it) Even the programs are much simpler to install using their click and run (never used it.. just from reviews). Windows installation is generally a horrible and grusome process for me personally. I have my own company building computers, and many windows installations, especially upgrades go astray."

Many Linux distributions also go astray. This is especially true of the desktop audience, where a broad range of exotic hardware is present, and Linux does not always contain the necessary drivers or workarounds for them. (Sometimes Linux even can't cope with them; my friend has had Linux lock up on him, it choked upon recognizing his hard drive).

Also, not all Linux distributions are as simple as LindowsOS to install. (I do agree that LindowsOS is much simpler than Windows to install, however.)

"Linux viruses will never be as potent as windows ones. Unless you're running root, which is really not recommended, they will only affect files the user in question has access to. That's why it's good to make an acct. with very few priviledges for regular use."

For basic desktop usage, there is only one user anyway. It would not be too difficult to write a virus to delete all files in the user's home directory. While this may not harm the actual system in any form, for a desktop user it is just as bad. In addition, judging by the many users who are click-happy and willing to run any kind of random program, if the software cannot do any harm without root privileges, they will request it and the naive ones will grant access. Bam - system destroyed When it comes down to the core, security is about trust.

"I think the main problem with Linux is a lack of easy program installation (except for Lwindows, but you need to pay $4 something monthly for that)."

Yes, dependency hell is a problem. Although Debian seemingly solves this problem elegantly with apt-get, the stable and testing branches are horribly outdated, and the unstable branch is, well... unstable (yes, I have used Debian Unstable for quite awhile before I got sick of random breakages and constant package maintainance problems). Gentoo is not much better; there appears to be almost no QA testing at all, and compiling big packages and their dependencies takes ages.

"An even bigger problem are zealots. That refuse to answer questions, and present people with a 'RTFM'. Most people aren't used to that, and we where all Linux newbies at one time (well.. except for Linus). So in the future when you see a person ask you, 'Where is MS office in linux' just answer kindly, and move along."

I couldn't agree more.

//i've used windows (xp currentelly) for 5 years, and linux for a couple of days, with windows i found things of all kinds to hate him, with linux i just dislike the way it's done (but i do like the consept, so linux groupies calm down, ok )//

What concepts do you like? What d