One day while doing my daily browsing through the web, I came across a message board post that was in response to a Linux zealot’s rant. It went a little something like this, “If Linux had the market share of Windows, and Windows was the underdog you would be saying how great, and easy to use Windows is, and how it just works.” My first reaction was of anger and dismissal, “Linux is open source Linux uses protected memory…” But the more I thought about it the more it disturbed me because I knew it was true. What do you do when you think an opinion you have may be in jeopardy of being wrong? You compare the facts and sort out the myths.
Editorial Notice: All opinions are those of the author and not necessarily those of osnews.com
Myth #1: Linux is the operating system that “just works”
This myth is simply untrue, Windows is the operating system that just works. Whether the Linux folks would like to admit it or not, Windows is easy to get going. You put in one
CD, install, boot, double click on Internet explorer, and download whatever programs you feel like. Then double click on the program, and 1, 2, 3 you are up and running. If it were flip flopped and
Windows was in Linux’s shoes the Windows zealots would go on and on about how complex, difficult, and limited package managers are, “See look we can get what we need right from the developer with an installation routine customized for their application!”
Myth #2: Windows is insecure
Okay maybe this isn’t a myth, Windows
for the most part is not, as secure as Linux. However, to
Microsoft’s credit, most of the time the crackers get their exploits
from patches already released from Microsoft. We give Microsoft a
hard time for, “taking over users computers to download
security updates.” Well what are they supposed to do when no
one downloads patches? Windows zealots would be going on about the
convenience and incredible support they get. “That’s right my
computer is constantly securing itself with the latest patches, no
recompiling and patching source code for us!” The bottom line
is this, most of the “insecurity,” of windows comes from
spy-ware, which comes from Internet Explorer, if you were to use
Netscape or any of the Mozilla’s then you would have drastically less
of these annoying critters.
Myth #3: Windows has better hardware
support
It is true that there are some devices
Linux simply does not support. At the risk of sounding predictable I
am just going to come out and say it, “Try and run windows on a
Mac.” Linux has excellent hardware support, especially if you
use a run of the mill desktop PC, or for that matter, you use a run
of the mill high performance cluster farm, or you use a run of the
mill really, really, old hardware. You get the point. My personal
experience proves this point. I have had the pleasure of installing
Linux on several machines, the two most common were a dell dimension
8200 and a dell laptop. Both are recent, but not really
recent, meaning they were in their driver support prime. Windows
detected everything on the Dimension except the sound card, the IBM
optical mouse, the CD burner, and of course there was only basic
support for my graphics card, a geForce2 MX. Additionally I had to go
through that awful “Setup your Internet connection wizard.”
On the Dell laptop Windows detected nothing, it gave me a tiny
resolution screen, a mouse, a keyboard, and read functionality on the
CD writer. I could not even get on my home network to download the 6
or 7 drivers. I had to go out and pull down the drivers from their
perspective manufacturers, burn them on a CD, and then proceed to
install each one, and reboot after every install. Both computers ran
Slackware, the most “Linux version of Linux.” with 100%
hardware detection, all of course, except for graphics acceleration
on the dimension, whose drivers had to be downloaded and compiled for
my kernel, which i will admit is a bigger pain than of that in
Windows, still I did not “need” to download them since
out of the box Linux support was more thorough than in Windows.
Myth #4: Linux does a few things and does them well
This is a myth that I got trapped in
for a long while. The way I looked at it is simple: if you have an IT
department to setup the Linux machines, then your average worker
would be more productive, because Linux is stable, and has everything
you would need to run an office. I assumed that it did not have that
good of support for graphics or audio which was no big deal in the
office. Then came Unreal Tournament 2004, ready and willing to be
played on Linux. I installed it from the CD’s it was all in one
directory that you could put anywhere on your system, it saved the
game files right in a hidden folder in the users home directory and
that was it. It rendered using OpenGL via the SDL(Simple Direct media
Layer, think DirectX). Apparently Slackware 9.1 had the packages
installed and ready to go, nothing told me that I needed to upgrade
or was missing any libraries or anything. The game play was
extraordinary. Smooth rendering, crystal clear sound, incredible
particle effects, anything you could ever want from a game. I decided
to boot over to my Windows partition on the same computer and give
the game a whirl, I was generous too, I downloaded the latest drivers
for my video card, and the latest DirectX, I also looked for patches
on the game. Before running the game I ended all processes that
weren’t necessary, Surely it would be even better on Windows. After
all it was made for Windows, and I have all of the latest
drivers and everything! I didn’t even look to see if I was current
when I loaded it up on Linux. Alas, I was wrong, It took forever to
get going on Windows, and I experienced lags, frame rate spikes,
inundated processor usage, and system crashes. It was still an
incredible game, just a lot smoother to run on Linux. All of the
sudden my geeky little Linux box transformed into a sleek, sexy
graphics machine. The good news keeps coming! With the freshly
reworked sound system, Advanced Linux Sound Architecture(ALSA), the
new Linux kernels have impeccable sound quality, and support. With
video editors on the horizon, and a plethora of audio tools readily
and freely available, Linux is showing it’s true multimedia colors,
and they are definitely crisp.
Myth #5: Windows is bad for the server
Throughout this article i have been more than fair to Windows than I probably should have been, but sorry Bill, you aren’t going to snake out of this one. It’s no myth,
Windows is bad news on the server. Don’t believe me? Check out Netcraft’s uptimes, the highest belong to FreeBSD and Linux. There are a couple of Windows servers up there, but they are few and far
between. “Yes this is true but uptime is not all that counts, if you are up for thirty days and then do a 2 minute reboot at 3 am I doubt the world will end.” This is true, and this is the exact
argument that Microsoft is pushing with there new server OS, they claim that since IIS (Internet Information Server, Microsoft’s very own web server) runs closer to the operating system, it has faster
response times and can serve up pages more effectively, than on a Linux system where the web server is running “far removed from the OS.” I am no security expert but if you tried to sell your
web server to the Linux community on the basis that it “works in kernel space instead of user space!” you would be laughed out of the room, and possibly the state. Yes you get a slight
performance increase but you are still limited by the system hardware, and if you have an memory leak you definitely don’t want the memory to leak all of your kernel’s memory, that could bring down
your system in a matter of seconds. While Linux does have security problems like any piece of software, if you make any sort of effort to patch it up you are tons better off than running a really secured
version of windows, in either case crackers are glorified and if it was really that “easy,” to break into a website yahoo would never be up, and neither would Microsoft.com. Update: Apparently the new Windows 2003 Server is not a bad competitor to Linux and FreeBSD according to a lot of people, but sadly I never tried it.
Myth #6: Mac is the best since it is as
easy to use as windows, and has the stability of UNIX
Macs are stable, yes. Macs are easy to
use, again true. However Apple suffers from some very serious “one
size fits all” issues. I would like to forewarn readers that i
have had exceptionally little experience with macs, think 4 or 5
hours total. This is just a little bit of what I have gathered if I
am wrong please, please, politely point it out under the assumption
that I am telling you I have no idea what I am talking about. On with
the goodies! Every single time I am at the mall I drag everyone into
the Mac store making my way all around it with my jaw dragging the
floor. No doubt the hardware is sleek and sexy, the desktops are
always up and running, and the graphics subsystem is a work of art to
be mimicked for years to come. Too me Macs are like a really fancy
furniture store, everything looks incredible, is comfortable, and of
the utmost quality. The only problem is that of a monetary nature.
From my voice to your ears: “I can’t afford a Mac!”
Believe me if I was a millionaire this would be a PowerMac g5 instead
of a cruddy old p3 450mhz machine I brought back from the grave.
That is another story, now onto the issue at hand. My one and only
qualm with Mac is the fact that everything has to be for and about
Mac, Apple is in the business of selling an “experience.”
This is fine and dandy if you don’t mind buying Mac hardware, and Mac
software updates, as well as using mostly Mac applications. I would
like to reiterate the point that those may not be negatives for some
of you, still, I am a tinkerer and a fan of the cheap, and diverse
world of standard PC hardware. Just remember that while Macs are
great computers they do have some shortcomings. Thinking objectively
you must realize Macs have the least hardware support, as well as the
least diverse selection of software. I am completely aware of “the
mhz myth” and would like to point out that even though the
megahertz gap between a mac processor and a p4 is not really
the performance gap, but the latest from Intel has usually
been better than the latest from Apple, and with the x86 architecture
you get more bang for your buck. Please no fan boy flames about Mac
hardware, bottom line: it’s good stuff but you can get a better
system, hardware speaking, for cheaper if you go with x86.
Additionally Apple goes to nVidia and ATI to provide them with their
graphics cards, which is a good move. ATI and nVidia are the world
leaders in graphics, just as Intel is the leader in processors, so
you would be much better off building a computer using the best, of
the best, throughout the hardware industry instead of being in vendor
lock-in with Apple. That last part is just my opinion, some people
love being 100% pure Apple users, and to those a say, more power too
ya’!
Myth #7: Linux is ready for the desktop
I know, I know, I am just asking to be
flamed, all the same I am going to speak my peace and be done with
it. I find it amusing when i come across Linux support forum posts,
where a newbie desktop user says something to the effect of: “in
Windows I was able to point to this, and click on this, to get this
done, how do I do that in Linux?” and they get a snotty
response in the format of, “That’s insecure and dumb, now open
up a terminal su over and issue this command, then use the output to
determine what format your distro uses for this, then you will be
able to do this, as long as this isn’t happening.” You see, no
one is accusing Windows of being intuitive, or especially easy to
use. The fact of the matter is Joe average can manage to point and
click his way to installing a piece of software. Linux suffers from
too much diversity, and too much flexibility. I just know someone is
going to bring up “apt-get,” stop! Don’t bring this up!
For Linux to be ready for the average home desktop you have to get it
to the point where a user will never have to see a terminal no matter
what they want to do on their computer. Personally I don’t think
Linux ever will be ready for the user next door, nor do I think it
ever should. There can be some other open source project to make a
desktop OS. I myself like the idea of the OS becoming “transparent,
like the OS on my microwave or car.” (I read that on
Osnews.com somewhere, all credit to that author) The two most common
mis-perceptions that i have heard assume one of two things. A) The
average user is overestimated. We simply assume they know, or can
figure out more things than they actually can, or would care to. B)
The user wants to do more with their desktop than we think. You would
be surprised at how far people are pushing their desktop machines.
People are downloading the latest and greatest file sharing tools and
games. They are downloading mini-web servers to show off pictures,
and are doing heavy duty desktop tweaking. These things are made more
complicated on Linux because of permissions and environment
confusion. If you develop software for Windows you know what
libraries and API’s are available to you, and if you want to use one
that is not available to a default Windows install you include it in
your installer. I wish it was that simple with Linux applications.
You never know what libraries the user has installed, aside from the
core ones. Basically if you want to create a program outside of
“hello world,” you better hope your user knows how to get
those libraries compiled and installed, and that they want to take
the time, and effort to do so. Maybe some of these problems can be
solved, but again in my experience every effort to make a distro more
user friendly has screwed up something else, something that I can’t
live without.
Conclusion
Hopefully you came away with the conclusion that not all operating systems are created equally, but all have their flaws. Using the information above should aid you in your decision to choose a platform that suites you best, at the very least I brought up some very profound points from all sides of the argument as to persuade some people out there who seem to think their OS is the absolute best. Remember to keep an open mind and have fun with it.
About the Author
Nick Comtois is an up and coming web developer (at least he hopes) who has been using the Slackware distro of linux for the past 2 years and has never looked back, except for when someone hypes up another distro and I run off to try and come crawling back to Slack. I have done everything from application programming with C/C++ to web scripting with perl and php.
If you would like to see your thoughts or experiences with technology published, please consider writing an article for OSNews.
um, yet another comment on Just Works. its more an idea then anything, (notice the caps). sort of like a Good Thing, Just Works is the goal of many open-source apps, ive seen the term thrown around both the gnome lists and the lkml. now, what probably happened is zealots read this, and start using it as a description of gnu/linux as a whole… just a guess
and all you people with the apt-get and what not, stfu. it will work for 80% of what you want to do, but then your boned if something isnt in a repository. so what do you do? either make a deb/rpm, or compile from source, neither of which is something most would consider “easy”.
last thing is linux on the desktop. personal beef of mine, linux is ready for MY desktop, and most likely ready for most of the desktops of people who post here. it sure as hell isnt ready for “Aunt Tillies” desktop, and that is what most people assume when they write those dumbass articles. its like, if a site has nothing better to do, do a “Is linux ready for the desktop?” article. been that way for as long as ive been using the OS.
Windows would be the Capitalist, Linux would equate to Communism.
So very wrong. You are not forced to do anything with Linux. You don’t even need to be a part of it at all if you don’t want to be. Communism doesn’t afford you that option. You cannot opt-out.
Linux is actually very capitalist. It allows hardware companies to spend less time and money on software to use the hardware and more on the actual hardware itself. It is also very diverse and in great competition. There are many Linux vendors to choose from and their success will depend entirely on how good they are. The best support will probably win out.
Microsoft on the other hand is very anti-competitive (anti-capitalist). For them it’s one choice for everyone, which sounds more communist than the situation with Linux.
Sorry about the rant but I’m sick of hearing uninformed views about how Linux is Communist and Windows is Capitalist. After all, Capitalism is about competition and without Linux there would be hardly any for Windows right now.
If someone were to tell me that if they did not do a clean install of Windows 9x every six or a dozen months, bad things would happen, I would believe them. If someone were to claim the same thing about Windows 2000 or XP, I’d say that they are either lying, or very unlucky.
Communism in the sense that everyone owns the means or resources (in the sense that they can use these things, modify them, etc.; in the shared manner Linux is known for).
Microsoft not Capitalist? Heh. It’s helped itself more than once.
“Typical user won’t have access to pirated software on Linux”
Actually there is pirated software for Linux. I’m not going to name the Usenet group, but it’s easy to figure out.
it will work for 80% of what you want to do, but then your boned if something isnt in a repository. so what do you do?
I don’t know, I’ve never needed a program that wasn’t in the Mandrake repository or that didn’t have its own installer. Really. Whenever I hear of a cool new Linux program, I usually check out if it’s available through urpmi. It’s always been in there.
The exception has been Crossover Office (which comes with its own installer) and a few games, which used the Loki Installer.
I think 80% is quite a low figure – it should be more like 95%, if not 98%.
it sure as hell isnt ready for “Aunt Tillies” desktop
Well, it depends on what Aunt Tilly wants to do with her computer. If she uses it for e-mail, surfing the web, word processing, spreadsheets, digital photo and keeping recipes, then Linux is quite ready for her desktop.
My girlfriend is a total non-geek, and yet she uses her Linux desktop daily, and she hasn’t any problems with it, thank you very much. It always depends on what you need to do.
One of the best articles I have read in a long time.
Honest opinion, and a refreshing change from the standard shit about OS’es
“::A list of OSes that don’t “just work”:
Windows
Linux
BSD
Amiga
System 7,8,9,X and all previous Macs
MorphOS
SkyOS
NeXT
BeOS
Unix (all variants)
Any other non-ROM OS. ”
MacOS 9 and below where ROM based OS’ so they shouldn’t be on the list if being ROM based is the requirement for being a system that “just works”. And by extension OSX should be listed with NeXTSTEP.
Someone please tell me we do not have YET ANOTHER ONE of these articles? Whether an OS ‘just works’ or not is quite relative. I have personally used Linux for 4 years on the desktop. For someone to STILL say it is not ready for the desktop is totally laughable. Perhaps the “Linux is not ready for the desktop” troll will some day replace the “BSD is dying” troll. Oh wait, it already has.
Anywho, Windows 98, all of those years ago, turned me completely off of Microsoft. I couldn’t believe then, and can’t believe now, ANYONE in their right mind would pay for it, much less use it. Yes, I know 2000 & XP are assumed to be more stable. I have tried them both. The problem is, for 4 years I have become used to a modular system. I can substitute kernels, browsers, email apps, word processors & anything else I want. You can’t do this on Windows, so why would I go back? Maybe you can remove IE & Outlook from Windows now, but you can’t substitute various kernel versions in Windows as in Linux, CLEANLY.
Of course there are those who say, the mere fact I know of various kernels and can install them makes me some kind of guru, so of course I would find Linux easy to use. Tell that to my 60 something year old father, who had never used a computer in his life. He happily points and clicks his way through KDE as often as he likes. He wouldn’t know a terminal if it hit him in the head. Yet, Linux is easy enough for him to use on his desktop.
Linux is used on desktops all around the world. Pointing and clicking through GNOME or KDE is no different than pointing and clicking through a windows GUI. Articles such as these are pointless flamebait, but I guess they increase site hits well enough.
“I don’t believe those people who claim here that they have to reformat windows once every 6 months or those to claim that they get a crash every day. I think this is just pure lies perpetrated by the linux community. I can’t remember when I last reformated windows (have I ever in the last 8 years?). As for crashes, i.e blue screens, I’ve seen a couple (i.e less than 5 in 8 years, and most of then occured one after the other) but they were down to driver problems.”
2004-8 = 1996
Most recent version of home Windows: Windows 95
So, how is your 2GB hard drive doing? Since you have never reformatted you are obviously in FAT16…
And you have the gull to call someone a troll! I think maybe you should stick with Windows 95, you obviously consider it to be the perfect OS as you’ve used it for 8 years!
“MacOS 9 and below where ROM based OS’ so they shouldn’t be on the list if being ROM based is the requirement for being a system that “just works”. And by extension OSX should be listed with NeXTSTEP.”
Ahem, maybe the important parts are ROM based but not all the preinstalled extensions and such. My point was that if you can alter the OS you can mess it up, and if you can alter it it’s probably because you may *need* to alter it; for example to run it on more than one set of hardware.
But sure, nit pick away. Miss the context for the individual parts.
I can substitute kernels, browsers, email apps, word processors & anything else I want. You can’t do this on Windows, so why would I go back?
Of course, you’re right. Since all Windows users HAVE to use IE and using other browsers like Mozilla, Firefox, and Opera is not an option, I guess we should ALL switch to Linux TODAY! Same with Outlook Express … I mean, I have no idea how the hell I got Thunderbird on my system, I guess Casper did that while I was asleep.
Maybe you can remove IE & Outlook from Windows now, but you can’t substitute various kernel versions in Windows as in Linux, CLEANLY.
Ya know, it’s funny how people point out to Windows users that Linux is just different and it is to be expected that things don’t work the same way, and then they bitch and moan when they can’t recompile the kernel in Windows. HELLO?? Windows users a micro kernel, you nimrod. Talk about different. There are plenty of ways to optimize Windows … recompiling the kernel isn’t even necessary.
Chris: So, how is your 2GB hard drive doing? Since you have never reformatted you are obviously in FAT16…
And you have the gull to call someone a troll! I think maybe you should stick with Windows 95, you obviously consider it to be the perfect OS as you’ve used it for 8 years!
There are tools that can convert the filesystem of a partition on a harddrive to another filesystem. There are also tools that can copy a partition on a harddrive to another harddrive. There are also tools to resize partitions. And so on and so forth.
As a result he could very well have copied his old partition to another hard drive and then converted it to FAT32 and then later copied it to another hard drive and then converted that to NTFS.
I’m not saying he did this, but the tools are available and as a result he could have done that or something similar.
It is very difficult to compare windows with linux.
For one linux consists of different flavors (distributions) which are maintained by different groups.
This means that before being able to make CD auto runnable (like in windows) in linux there should be a widely adopted standard (not just a standard made and developed by a single company). Microsoft can set the rules for his familiy of operating systems. Redhad, Suse, Mandrake, can sets its rules for its own distribution, but it cannot assume that what it defines, will be followed by others!
Understanding this will make the all difference between appreciating the possibilities of different OSes. Linux on its own can or could never be in a monopoly situation as microsoft is. A particular distribution could hypothetically be in such situation, but not the linux familly due to the constructions and decision rules.
Also you can’t inverse the roles monopoly linux versus underdog windows without taking the assumption that this would result in having more common applications running on linux than on windows.
One must know that all big applications where developped on windows because it was the common os. If roles where different those application would have been written for linux !!!
Take this in mind before comparing apples with pears.
“If Linux had the market share of Windows, and Windows was the underdog you would be saying how great, and easy to use Windows is, and how it just works.”
I have said that so many times I wouldnt be surprised if he got that quote from me and it is so true.
” Myth #5: Windows is bad for the server
Throughout this article i have been more than fair to Windows than I probably should have been, but sorry Bill, you aren’t going to snake out of this one. It’s no myth, Windows is bad news on the server. Don’t believe me? Check out Netcraft’s uptimes, the highest belong to FreeBSD and Linux. There are a couple of Windows servers up there, but they are few and far between. “Yes this is true but uptime is not all that counts, if you are up for thirty days and then do a 2 minute reboot at 3 am I doubt the world will end.” This is true, and this is the exact argument that Microsoft is pushing with there new server OS, they claim that since IIS (Internet Information Server, Microsoft’s very own web server) runs closer to the operating system, it has faster response times and can serve up pages more effectively, than on a Linux system where the web server is running “far removed from the OS.” I am no security expert but if you tried to sell your web server to the Linux community on the basis that it “works in kernel space instead of user space!” you would be laughed out of the room, and possibly the state. Yes you get a slight performance increase but you are still limited by the system hardware, and if you have an memory leak you definitely don’t want the memory to leak all of your kernel’s memory, that could bring down your system in a matter of seconds. While Linux does have security problems like any piece of software, if you make any sort of effort to patch it up you are tons better off than running a really secured version of windows, in either case crackers are glorified and if it was really that “easy,” to break into a website yahoo would never be up, and neither would Microsoft.com. Update: Apparently the new Windows 2003 Server is not a bad competitor to Linux and FreeBSD according to a lot of people, but sadly I never tried it. ”
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/04/04/most_reliable_hosting_… in March the most reliable Web servers were FreeBSD and Windows, FreeBSD had have, Windows had 4 and Linux only had 1. Note: This was Windows 2000 Server. Windows makes a good server OS, I have a few of them up and running at work and they do extremely well. I have been nothing short of pleased with their performance.
One of the things I have noticed is that advocacy for Linux has gone from technical merits to ” Dont buy Windows because Microsoft is rich enough” or “Dont buy Windows because Microsoft is a Monopoly” People keep punding the message that Microsoft is some big evil corporation that doesnt care about anything but filling their pockets.
Myth #1: Linux is the operating system that “just works”
True. (All drivers are included i the kernel, easy to set up!)
Myth #2: Windows is insecure
True
Myth #3: Windows has better hardware support
False! (Windows HAD better hardware support, Linux over took it and is progressing at a increadable rate.)
Myth #4: Linux does a few things and does them well
True
Myth #5: Windows is bad for the server
Oh so true
Myth #6: Mac is the best since it is as easy to use as windows, and has the stability of UNIX
True
Myth #7: Linux is ready for the desktop
true
Myth #8: Win2k/Xp crashes just as any other windows.
True (it doesn’t mattter if it has the correct hardware or drivers. If Linux can run without crashing on that exact same hardware then win2k and xp should do the same. Also I’ve seen both Win2k and xp crash on boxes that were built for the OS. So I guess no hardware or drivers are fit for M$ windows.)
Oh, Macs are expenive. Depends on what system you spec.
Mac:
8Gb 2x2Ghz procs ~ £6.3k
Branded PC with cool case:
2Gb 2x2Ghz procs, double the VRAM ~ £6.8k
I’d say the Mac was cheaper.
#myth 1.) Linux is hard to use and has a huge learning curve.
False! Whether it be SuSE, Redhat, linspire or Xandros. Each are easy to use and understand.
#Myth 2.) Windows is easy to use.
False! although it does depend on what the user is familiar with. Most people get fmailiar with windows just by constantly fixing it. They spend so much time tweeking it that productivity is low. Nobody cares in fixing the registry or tweeking dll files. They just want to get their work done!
#Myth 3.) There are no good or killer apps for the alternative platforms.
False! The fact is there are alternative aplications plus there are virtual machines and emulators that can help out such as vmware or crossover office that can help run that “special m$ or killer app.”
Myth 4.) If Linux was as popular as windows it would be just as buggy and have just as many viruses.
Oh my FALSE! Because of how Linux or any nix for that matter, is built, viruses have a much harder time infecting and spreading through out the system.
Myth 5.) OSX is too expensive compared to windows!
FALSE! Even with a higher price tag. Your getting a solid machine that will last you for years and not have any repairs. That means you get everything you want and you don’t need to fork over loads of cash to the tech help desk!
“I don’t believe those people who claim here that they have to reformat windows once every 6 months or those to claim that they get a crash every day. I think this is just pure lies perpetrated by the linux community. I can’t remember when I last reformated windows (have I ever in the last 8 years?). As for crashes, i.e blue screens, I’ve seen a couple (i.e less than 5 in 8 years, and most of then occured one after the other) but they were down to driver problems.”
You see, thats the thing I just don’t get with windows shrills. They think that this is all made up by the Linux community.
I came to know what windows does by my own expeariance of it. Those who use Linux, usually get so fed up with fixing windows constantly that reasearch to find a better alternative. That alternative for me was Linux.
I KNOW that to run M$ Windows properly you really should re-install it every 6 months. The reason for this is to keep the registry clean and the dlls files correctly alined. No old registry keys or dll files clogging up the system and causing crashes. Pluse if you patch windows regularly you will find that the OS slows down or some parts of it breaks. This can be included with patching av software and firewalls as well. So to keep it clean, yes a clean install every 6 months or face instabillity issues in the future.
I’ve used Windows3.1/95/98SE/ME and windows2000 and XP! They all do the same thing. Also it IS very important to scan check defrag the system. This keeps the performans up.
But in all honesty why go through THAT much work. My idea of a computer is that you use it when you want to to get things done or maby play some games, surf the internet. Not religusly visist MSDN , trying to trouble shoot another problem and take away time from your life.
I used to love windows 95/ME just because I could do so much with it. But now, after I discovered Linux. I realized that you don’t have to be there fixing the machine 24/7. You can actually go outside and spend time with your loved ones!
one fucked up article. The whole part about Macs were simply the authors prejudice. More bang for the buck? Right now that is true, when Apple releases new G5’s in a couple of months the tables will be turned. It’s always been like that, one month (or more) the PC has the best performance, the next it’s reversed. He writes that if he would have had money he would own a G5, well then.. why does he rant on about vendor lock, and superior x86 performance when he says that he WANTS one, It can’t be much of an issue when he says it flat out – I want a G5?
Ironic that he speaks of “one size fits all” when he talks about Apple, when he later on himself says he is a tinkering kind of a guy, and acts like if HE can’t build himself a Mac, then it’s no good. He needs to realize himself that one size does not fit all, and just because he can’t put a Mac toghether himself that does not mean that it’s a bad platform for the rest of us.
And whats with that “you mostly have to use Mac software” ? Well, duh! You have to mostly use Windows software when you’re on Wintel too. Besides, the Mac can use Linux Software (through the wounderful Fink) AND Windows software through Virtual PC. And btw, you don’t have to pay for software updates. Stop spreading FUD.
Myth #1: If you get a alredy installed Gentoo linux with KDE and their graphical installer, I think the problem of managing the system isn’t much more trouble than managing windows. At least not when comes to installing applications and uninstalling them. (likely to be better since you get more power over which components to add/remove. just try to get rid of Explorer in windows
Myth #2: If patched throughly, removed the “everybody” right on the root file system(s), turn on eventual firealls etc, then windows get to be pretty secure after all. however, it’s mayor flaw is that most viruses/worms/attacks target it, and not linux/mac.
Myth #3: You had a good experience with your GNU/Linux ?
Good for you, but for long as hardware vendors _refuse_ to open up their standards so that those willing people who write the linux drivers can do that, windows is going to be the winner here. However, it’s not linux fault that it cannot support all devices, it would’ve if their was more information available.
Myth #4: Not true. Linux, as the OS and not DE does most to everything with more perfection than I ever seen. However, the OS is not what makes out the experience, so it’s all up to applications, and those are getting better rapidly.
Myth #5: In these times when everything attacks a windows machine they are bad for the server. Again, well configured for securety rather for usability they can be used. (this seems to me, as a soon-to-be MSCP (Microsoft Certified Proffessional) that changing the needed amount in windows to act securely if far much more work than installing a linux distro and securing it somewhat.)
Myth #6: Mac does some things well. really well. However mac works for me as Gnome does. it locks me in and makes me use only their tools and applications, removing my diversity and choice. The most commmon applications however are real killers. too bad I can’t make the system “fit me”.
Myth #7: Almost true. Linux is about to get ready for the desktop. and it’s getting real close. but…
if y-windows become reality ( http://www.y-windows.org ) then I’m confident GNU/Linux will take over the desktopmarket completely within a year.
y-windows solves gtk/qt issues, unifies, standardizes while still allowing the users to switch the parts inside the system.
The only thing I think could slow the process of linux entering the desktop down is the hardware manufacturers who refuse to code decent drivers or give away specs so others can. (see nVidia)
I don’t believe those people who claim here that they have to reformat windows once every 6 months or those to claim that they get a crash every day. (…) As for crashes, i.e blue screens, I’ve seen a couple (i.e less than 5 in 8 years, and most of then occured one after the other) but they were down to driver problems.
That means less than 5 blue screens in 4 years of Win 95/98/Me. And you’re the one talking about pure lies of others, having crashes ? I have had crashes everyday with XP, don’t know why, but if someone tells me they’ve had no crashes with 2K/XP during 4 years I believe them. But 5 blue screens in 4 years of 95/98/Me is the most obvious lie I’ve ever seen. Unless you used that system only 5 times in your life, or you were not running any software on it ?
“Just because Win 2K/XP works for you doesn’t mean it is stable. From what I had heard, I expected XP and 2K to be stable. They’re definitely unstable (an OS that freezes more than once a day is certainly not, and the fact that you MS-zealots know how to tune it and make it stable does not help me).”
And the fact that Linux works for some, doesnt mean its stable either. In the first few weeks after installing Mandrake 10, I had it crash more times than I have managed to get Windows XP to do so in the last year. I definately was not impressed. I could try a different distro, but really, I shouldnt have to waste my time doing so… By the way, the only tuning I have done for Windows is just a normal install and downloading the latest patches. I guess that doesnt help, since I am an MS-zealot… I guess I can blame Windows for working out so well with everything I need it to do for making me a zealot. Darn you Windows for working! Darn it all the heck!
His UT2004 experience certainly contradicts his first myth.
I’m late to this thread, but not too late to give you my opinion.
If you get a alredy installed Gentoo linux with KDE and their graphical installer, I think the problem of managing the system isn’t much more trouble than managing windows
I had Gentoo up and running, and I must say, it was indeed the nicest Linux distro I have come across so far. But I still had to fiddle with kernel configuration options and different kernel versions to get things running – something I never had to while using Windows.
Then I bought myself an USB WLAN adapter, because I needed one. The chipset is even supported under Linux – but it ain’t part of Gentoo portage. And, after fiddling with the atmel drivers and several different “wireless” packages for a while, cursing about Linux documentation scattered over thousands of web pages, and not getting the thing to work, I gave up. I reinstalled Win2k, started the setup.exe from the CD that came with the adapter, and installed Cygwin instead.
As for drivers, hey, Linux could have every hardware manufacturer in the world delivering drivers to your doorstep.
But right now, kernel interfaces are changing on purpose so that only open-sourced drivers can really keep up (look up the Linux Kernel Mailing List if you don’t believe me), and the FSF is actively opposing available cross-platform driver architectures because they don’t fit their “free software” propaganda (which, actually, means “free Linux software” if you read up http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/udi.html).
Again, you could have all the drivers you want delivered to your doorstep, ready-to-install binary packages including setup.exe for Joe Average. If only you could finally get out of your Utopia and accept that forcing hardware drivers to open source is not helpful.
“Again, you could have all the drivers you want delivered to your doorstep, ready-to-install binary packages including setup.exe for Joe Average. ”
We could also be stuck with the legacy baggage that Windows had to overcome, or have you forgotten?
“If only you could finally get out of your Utopia and accept that forcing hardware drivers to open source is not helpful.”
Freedom’s utopia? Well I guess that explains why the world has so precious little of it.
“forcing hardware drivers to open source is not helpful.”
I wonder if the owners of Aureal sound cards would agree with you?
So the argument seems to be this: most MS exploits are based on problems MS already patched, so it is false to say MS security is poor.
But wait a minute: if the software was secure, there wouldn’t be so many patches of major holes in the first place. The fact that customers don’t patch their systems in time to stop nasty worms is just further proof that security requires doing things right the first time, as much as possible, proof that the Big Hole+Big Patch methodology does not make an OS secure.
Furthermore: if we consider an OS secure just because patches are issued for all known vulnerabilities, then can we call any major OS “insecure”?
I’d take the pragmatic viewpoint that an OS is insecure if it is open to attacks in normal use, e.g. by average users with average behavior and a default install. That’s another way of saying that we measure an OS’s security by the number of insecure boxes actually out there, and how vulnerable they are—this is the factor that really matters when major exploits occur.
Caj
Ok here is a myth, well its still more than a myth but something that totally took me by surprise: “Users use windows cuz its easier and they panic when they dont see a START button”
My dad is a computer illiterate person, he knows how to boot his laptop and start his applications under windows. he came to visit me last week and my job consisted of fixing his and my moms laptop from all the nice windows… uhm… “add ons” (read: WORMS and spyware). Well My main box runs linux (mdk 10 amd64 for now but not for much longer). to make a long story short, he asked if he could check his email while i was fiddling with his machine, i said sure go ahead just open the browser on my machine. after 20 minutes i went to check up on him, he was surfing just fine and even using TABS.. i couldnt believe it, my dad had figured out how to use the browser and use tABS in 20 minutes .. then i asked him how he like linux. he said what? i just thought you hadd some fancy icons. suffice to say, after i told him about popup blocking, and he saw the power to TABS , he wanted firebird on his laptop. on a sidenote he is also now doing all his work in OpenOffice, which surprise surprise opened his word documents without a hitch (even places the graphics correctly) and his excel sheets still work fully with all the calculations.
Short comment at the end: I have used windows since 3.0 and dos WAY before that I used linux since 1997 and I have owned a MAc for a few months. I loved the OS X interface and the consitency of the apps, For standard desktops Windows is still the king but Linux ios gaining because people are getting fed up with pop-ups and spyware and worms.
Now the last thing i will say: HARDWARE SUPPORT!! windows might be nice but genereally it is NOT on par with linux or OS X. Misplace your Motherboard CDs, reinstall windows with new hardware and start to weep. Gigabit ethernet- no way, geforce FX 5900 good luck, framebuffer only. SATA controller and drivers: nope… so basically a nice new system (in my case Athlon64 3200+, 2x 120GB SATA, 1x120GBPATA, onboard GbitE, onboard Sound, onboard SATA,winTV card) is pretty much screwed. I had to install on the PATA drive. Now you all say yea but linux can only do that with recent distros. true but it CAN without external driver loading and downloading. Suse worked since v 9.0, mdk 10 installed without any hitches.. no problem at all, i mean EVERYTHING was configured and installed in 30 minutes.. including office and TV programs.. now, i timed a windows XP installation with all the drivers etc: close to 2 hours, and that includes office. I can see alreadyt the BUT’s flying in, point is though that a lot of zealots dont give users enuff credit. I worked in hell-desk for years so i know how dumb users can be but they can also be very fast learning…
//Vic
@ BR:
> We could also be stuck with the legacy baggage that
> Windows had to overcome, or have you forgotten?
I consider having to “./configure && make && make install” and potentially recompiling my kernel to support new hardware to be the stone-age of computing. Which legacy have you left behind by placing this burden upon users, again?
> Freedom’s utopia? Well I guess that explains why
> the world has so precious little of it.
Freedom of speech includes freedom for the opinion you don’t like to hear. Freedom of choice includes the choice not to be free. Freedom such as you define it includes the freedom to fail miserably whenever you have something to do that isn’t covered by the stock install of your favourite distro.
And, given the high resistance of the “community” to accept constructive criticism, it also means the freedom to suck heavily in the eyes of someone who needs his computer as a *tool* instead of a full-time toy for nerdy I-like-a-patchin’ types.
> “forcing hardware drivers to open source is not helpful.”
>
> I wonder if the owners of Aureal sound cards would
> agree with you?
I have no idea what you’re talking about, but I rather have a closed-source driver that just works, instead of an open-sourced driver that can be made to work after reading pages of how-to, recompiling my kernel and trying hard for over two days.
“But right now, kernel interfaces are changing on purpose so that only open-sourced drivers can really keep up (look up the Linux Kernel Mailing List if you don’t believe me)”
With the “implication” that there are no legitimite reasons for it to do so, and the “understatement” that somehow it’s a ploy to “get those closed-source” vendors.
“and the FSF is actively opposing available cross-platform driver architectures because they don’t fit their “free software” propaganda (which, actually, means “free Linux software” if you read up http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/udi)
Oh, now does anyone here find it a touch ironic that someone is complaining about utopias and “software propaganda” while using a free and open OS?
Anyway here’s what he has to say “Cooperation with UDI is not out of the question. We should not label UDI, Intel, or anyone, as a Great Satan. But before we participate in any proposed deal, we must judge it carefully, to make sure it is advantageous for the free software community, not just for proprietary system developers. On this particular issue, that means requiring that cooperation take us a step further along a path that leads to the ultimate goal for free kernels and drivers: supporting all important hardware with free drivers.”
Note that he doesn’t approach the subject matter with the “wild-eyed zeal” that people accuse him of, but is looking out for the interest of the Open Source community. Solar, are you looking out for the interest of the Open Source community?
“It does not seem likely that Intel would offer a deal that gives us what we need. In fact, UDI seems designed to make it easier to keep specifications secret.
“Still, there is no harm in keeping the door unlocked, as long as we are careful about who we let in.”
More of that caution. You’d think that with the SCO issue, and patents gone amock, let alone all the other messs that’s been happening for the past twenty years in the business community, that people would be a bit more cautious, but apparently the fact that I have to write this post proves otherwise.
Maybe we will have “all the drivers we can eat” if we play by others rules, but we will never be able to call ourselves a free OS with a straight face ever again. Think about it.
Very good stuff!!!
BR: I wonder if the owners of Aureal sound cards would agree with you?
Solar: I have no idea what you’re talking about, but I rather have a closed-source driver that just works, instead of an open-sourced driver that can be made to work after reading pages of how-to, recompiling my kernel and trying hard for over two days.
Aureal was a company that made sound cards and chipsets to be used by other sound card manufacturers. If my memory serves me well, they went under after they won a legal battle against Creative Labs. (Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong)
Anyway… So their wonderful sound cards (I liked them) no longer have updated drivers. (As far as I know)
As an owner of two Aureal sound cards I can say, “Oh well.” I’ve had worse things happen to me and I definitely have bigger problems than worrying about my two sound cards not having updated drivers.
In the end, I can also say that there’s probably advantages and disadvantages either way and even with updated drivers, I would probably no longer be using those sound cards in any of my good computers.
“I consider having to “./configure && make && make install” and potentially recompiling my kernel to support new hardware to be the stone-age of computing. Which legacy have you left behind by placing this burden upon users, again? ”
I haven’t placed anything on anyone. You have free will, use it. If you want to relieve yourself of this “burden” then of course you can use an OS that the manufacturers will support.
Anyway the legacy is all the code that was frozen in order to support legacy software and hardware. Weither you realize it or not, even OS’es need to progress, and that becomes harder and harder the longer one waits.
“Freedom of speech includes freedom for the opinion you don’t like to hear. Freedom of choice includes the choice not to be free. Freedom such as you define it includes the freedom to fail miserably whenever you have something to do that isn’t covered by the stock install of your favourite distro. ”
Freedom also means that the hardware I purchase, is free from the dictates of an unfeeling corporation. Freedom means that everything on my desktop is MINE. No one can come back and say “I need more profit, your hardware is no longer supported”. Freedom also means that I no longer have to play a game of “pass the buck” with tech support “Oh no the problem’s with the other guy, call him. [lather, rinse, repeat]” Freedom means that I don’t have to worry about my hardware being “limited” because one corporation has to appease another (Macrovision, DRM).
“And, given the high resistance of the “community” to accept constructive criticism, it also means the freedom to suck heavily in the eyes of someone who needs his computer as a *tool* instead of a full-time toy for nerdy I-like-a-patchin’ types. ‘
You have a rather loose definition of “constructive”.
“I have no idea what you’re talking about, but I rather have a closed-source driver that just works, instead of an open-sourced driver that can be made to work after reading pages of how-to, recompiling my kernel and trying hard for over two days.”
Funny you should say that. Here’s the other freedom. The freedom to continue being able to use my hardware regardless of other changes. Like the company being bought by Creative, and driver development stopped. Kind of puts a crimp on the whole “just works”, now doesn’t it?
At least with the open-source driver you have a fighting chance to get it working. Can’t say the same for your closed source “just works” driver.
@Gareth
What I’m opposing is that most of these “comparisons” almost always features an image of either an entusiast distribution like Gentoo LFS, Chainsaw or experimental like Fedora – or generally something that is on the same level af Slackware 2.0 was. Then the GNU/Linux is trashed for not being as userfriendly as the latest Windows … and results in the image that Microsoft has patented terms like development and userfriendlyness – while everything else stand still.
How often does your sceendriver just dissapear ?
I like textmode programs and I like the command prompt, even the *NIX terminal … but after installing a mainstream GNU/Linux I actually use the command prompt of eCS more than the terminal of Linux … while I never use the console of Windows, because it is totally unusable, it is intentionally a disgrace.
@snowflake
“Intalling apps on Linux requires a lot of knowledge, far too much for the average person.”
You make a generel statement – eliminating the mainstream distributions.
re :OSes that don’t just work
AFAIR Tulip made a PC series with ROM-based Windows 3.1
@ vicious1
“Ok here is a myth, well its still more than a myth but something that totally took me by surprise: “Users use windows cuz its easier and they panic when they dont see a START button” ”
Actually many users does freeze, unless they get the exactly same screen, that they are used to. Even another order of icons in the startbar (or whatever their kickerarea is called) can cause a brainfreeze with some people.
Having just spent two days uninstalling malware that was installed by inadvertent clicks in Internet Explorer, I have to say that I’ve never experienced anything of the like in Linux. True, I’ve wrestled with printers for two days, or had serious sound problems, but never anything that renders the system BOTH insecure and unstable in one fell swoop (and that can happen from ordinary user action like clicking on a link).
That said, all OSes have problems and strengths and it depends largely upon what you do with them as to whether or not you will encounter them. If you have great sysadmins who use well thought out firewalls, have disabled downloads and are otherwise vigilant with patches, your experience in Windows may be very positive. Likewise, if you are running Linux as root and don’t set up a firewall and (add other silly things here), you may find yourself hosting a trojan or facing system crashes.
When all you have is a hammer, all you see are a lot of nails…
Stop feeding us the same caramel over and over… When Windows 2K/XP crash HARD, isn’t because of bad drivers/hardware! It is SIMPLY a problem of Windows!
Of course bad drivers/hardware can cause problems to ALL OSes but stop spreading this M$ caramel of “2K/XP crashes=bad drivers/hardware”… Windows 2K/XP crash because of TOO many bugs in them… If it was simply a matter of bad drivers/hardware then why, oh, why THAT many Service Packs + Windows Updates? (SP1-4 for 2K and SP1-2 for XP) :rolleyes:
That M$ caramel tastes SO bad! If you like it, THAT much, EAT it until you will die or something but don’t spread it anymore! :rolleyes:
Maybe Windows XP Reloaded will be better. Then again maybe XP Revolutions will be even better :p
What I’m opposing is that most of these “comparisons” almost always features an image of either an entusiast distribution like Gentoo LFS, Chainsaw or experimental like Fedora – or generally something that is on the same level af Slackware 2.0 was. Then the GNU/Linux is trashed for not being as userfriendly as the latest Windows … and results in the image that Microsoft has patented terms like development and userfriendlyness – while everything else stand still.
Jah… exactly. But my point was that although cli is great people wont see linux as on the same *desktop* level as Macos and Windows until the command line is unneeded for day to day use (like macos)
i can’t believe i just wasted my time reading this… maybe osnews should go for a higher standard of journalism.
this was just a list of generalizations labeled “myths” that usually are only true in this one users experience.
instead of letting “up & coming” web designers right articles on OS’s, how about some IT professionals?
I just love people that claim that if they had a million bucks they would buy a mac, as if macs are toys for the rich. I work full time, go to grad school, pay rent, pay utilities, pay for my car and still dont make over a 5 figure income, (low 5 figure FYI), yet I am still able to purchase a mac.
Just like my grandmom in Greece told me, save your 10 drachma coins, soon you will have 100 drachma bills, save those and soon you will have 1000 drachma bills, save those and then you can buy whatever you want…
seems like simple savings rules, that my grandmother knows – and she did not even finish 4th grade, ellude the highly educated yet completely slanted people in today’s world.
Solar, want to point out I do believe in evolution and commersialism as much as I want to believe in the utopia of freedom and socialism.
It won’t change the fact that thousands of people have mailed nvidia asking them to supply drivers that fully support nvidias nforce chipsets. (I’m one of them, mailed them several times)
Hardware manufacturers have a choice of making binary drivers for linux, in userspace as the kernel allows direct contact with hardware.
Either way the major problem I have had (which now makes me bojcott nVidia) is the SoundStorm issue. As of Kernel 2.6 ALSA has been a solution nVidia could’ve easily made drivers for, still they haven’t.
Still now, after _years_ are we stuck without decent drivers for the full capabilities of the SoundStorm chip.
Wouldn’t you say it’s nvidia’s foult rather then GNU/OSS?
I mean, if the ALSA devs can make a driver that works to some extend (the i810 chipset driver), then why couldn’t nVidia make a driver?
Is ALSAs API/Specifications changing too? (wouldn’t think so)
May be GNU don’t like it, but everage joe would probably be happy if such drivers came around.
I have said that so many times I wouldnt be surprised if he got that quote from me and it is so true.
Actually, we can’t know that. The only way to know if this was indeed true or not would be for Linux to actually have 95% of the market, which will never happen. So in fact it is an unverifiable statement and therefore cannot be said to be true.
But don’t let that get in the way of your Microsoft cheerleading…
There are too many comments to read, so don’t blame me if this has been pointed out.
Myth 7 is fairly objective and accurate, but starting rom the last ten lines it starts to break apart.
“If Linux had the market share of Windows, and Windows was the underdog you would be saying how great, and easy to use Windows is, and how it just works.” My first reaction was of anger and dismissal, “Linux is open source Linux uses protected memory…” But the more I thought about it the more it disturbed me because I knew it was true.
>> I’m not sure, but I think it was right here that I determined that you needed to get another hobby. Why do you feel so strongly that your ego is tied to an operating system?
The lack of facts, the lack of anything resembling rational thought, the completely pathetic spelling and grammar…I mean, the kid isn’t EVEN a web developer yet.
“Nick Comtois is an up and coming web developer (at least he hopes) who has been using the Slackware distro of linux for the past 2 years and has never looked back, except for when someone hypes up another distro and I run off to try and come crawling back to Slack. I have done everything from application programming with C/C++ to web scripting with perl and php.”
And he switches person perspectives from “Nick is a…” to “I am a…”
I mean, come on, who posted this drivel?
> Personally I don’t think Linux ever will be ready for the user next door.
people used to think the same about freebsd — until apple proved them wrong.
Windows will not install on half of my x86 computers.
If you buy computers that were designed from the ground up to run windows OF COURSE windows will work well.
“Windows is the operating system that just works”
what?!?!?!?!
Take it from a guy trying to get mpeg editing and dvd authoring working on his win 2k machine that this is simply not true. Or from the same guy trying to get the software that came BUNDELED WITH his sony DV cam to work on same win 2k machine.
Windows requires SO MANY little pieces of software to do anything, there never seems to be enough hours in the week to do anything besides word and email with a windows machine. Not to mention the fact that each step to do anything with windows costs about $60 a pop. Want to remove commercials from MPEG-2s that’ll be $60. Want to put those MPEG-2s onto a DVD with menus, that’ll be $60. This adds up quick. Not to mention the fact that windows 2k makes a 2.2 XP+ crawl….
Windows rarely works how I want it to, requires at least as much time to setup to work as Linux or FreeBSD, and I always end up with a poorer running less satisfying desktop.
“Jah… exactly. But my point was that although cli is great people wont see linux as on the same *desktop* level as Macos and Windows until the command line is unneeded for day to day use (like macos)”
But the terminal is uneeded for day to day use on mainstream distributions like SUSE, Lindows (Or whatever it is allowed to call itself this week) and XandrOS.
That Slackware, Chainsaw and LFS lives of the terminal/console doesn’t make the entire GNU universe unfit for the desktop.
“That means less than 5 blue screens in 4 years of Win 95/98/Me. And you’re the one talking about pure lies of others, having crashes ? I have had crashes everyday with XP, don’t know why, but if someone tells me they’ve had no crashes with 2K/XP during 4 years I believe them. But 5 blue screens in 4 years of 95/98/Me is the most obvious lie I’ve ever seen. Unless you used that system only 5 times in your life, or you were not running any software on it ?”
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. BSODs do not exist in Win95/98/ME. They only exist in Windows NT based operating systems. I agree that Win95/98/ME “hang” very often, but they will never go to the infamous Blue Screen.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. BSODs do not exist in Win95/98/ME. They only exist in Windows NT based operating systems. I agree that Win95/98/ME “hang” very often, but they will never go to the infamous Blue Screen.
So then I just have had a version of Windows NT 95 and Windows NT 98? Because I know I had BSOD’s on both those machines. I mean, heck, we can all remember our very first BSOD…
As an asside, for all those people who claim to not have their Windows machine crash, etc. That’s nice. Now I know why logging into a Windows account took me well over 5 minutes this morning. I mean, I just love it when Windows rewrites network settings (not spyware, Windows did this). It’s good to know that the machine doesn’t crash. I guess if you build a OS that breaks itself, a crash really isn’t a crash then, huh?
“Since all Windows users HAVE to use IE and using other browsers like Mozilla, Firefox, and Opera is not an option”
Comprehension skills are something you may wish to cultivate. One of the issues I have with Windows is that IE & Outlook CAN’T BE REMOVED. With Linux, I can REMOVE any browser or email app & REPLACE it with another. Installing another browser of email app, while IE or Outlook remain installed, was not discussed in my original post.
“There are plenty of ways to optimize Windows … recompiling the kernel isn’t even necessary.”
Again, you may wish to brush up on your comprehension skills. My original post discussed REPLACING kernels, not RECOMPILING. Oh wait, you can’t grasp simple concepts written in English, so of course you missed both points completely. Now run along and update your virus software, clean the adware from your system, then clean the spyware from your system & then proclaim how easy Microsoft products are to use.
>So then I just have had a version of Windows NT 95 and
>Windows NT 98? Because I know I had BSOD’s on both those
>machines. I mean, heck, we can all remember our very first
>BSOD…
The Blue screens you get to see on Win95/98/ME are not the BSOD but they are also blue and tend to get shown when your machine hangs/crashes. Thats all in Microsoft logic.
A real BSOD show some stack/kernel information and is only on
NT. WinXP/2000 just reset or shutdown. Thats the new logic of Microsoft, so the users thinks he my machines reboots, must be the hardware because Windows is superB.
Apple and Linux are in the top5 of the fastest supercomputers on this world. You gotta just love Linux it runs from a wristwatch but also a giant supercomputer, it runs on x86 but also on ppc without many changes to the kernel.
is it my impression or is there a REALLY good reason why all os’s at the top are bsd/os and freebsd? (besides being very capable operating systems, of course)
Operating systems we can usually work out uptimes for are:
* BSD/OS
* FreeBSD [but not the default configuration in versions 3 to 4.3]
* HP-UX [recent versions]
* IRIX
* Linux on Intel x86 processor, kernel versions 2.1 to 2.5.24
* Linux on ARM, M68k, MIPS, PowerPC, S/390, SH and SPARC processors
* NetApp NetCache
* Solaris 2.6 and later
* Windows 2000
* Windows Server 2003
* Windows XP
Operating systems that do not provide uptime information include;
* AIX
* AS/400
* Compaq Tru64
* DG/UX
* Linux before kernel version 2.1
* Linux on Alpha and IA64 processors
* Linux on Intel x86 processor from kernel version 2.5.25
* MacOS
* MacOSX
* NT3/Windows 95
* NT4/Windows 98
* NetBSD/OpenBSD
* NetWare
* OS/2
* OS/390
* SCO UNIX
* SunOS 4
* VM
Comprehension skills are something you may wish to cultivate. One of the issues I have with Windows is that IE & Outlook CAN’T BE REMOVED. With Linux, I can REMOVE any browser or email app & REPLACE it with another. Installing another browser of email app, while IE or Outlook remain installed, was not discussed in my original post.
Actually, my biggest gripe with KDE, is you can’t get rid Konqueror for the same reason you can’t in windows
Never used NT. s/BSOD/blue screen/ then, exactly the same thing for Joe User. OS crashed or requiring immediate reboot. I didn’t know what’s called “BSOD” was specific to NT, but I don’t see how usual “blue screens” can be better than “BSOD”. The blue screens I’ve experienced with 98 were certainly not acceptable for an OS (actually that’s what made me change).
“When this happened, it was better to simply reboot (the cool thing is that you can still logon and type “reboot” instead of power cycling the machine, and therefore fsck up your filesystems).”
Right, that’s great. I solved this by SSHing to the computer ordering it to reboot. This also works but one has to have a 2nd computer with SSH available for this.
“I’m wondering if the same kind of thing would happen if NVIDIA open-sourced their drivers and the eager Linux hackers had a look at the code…I find it annoying that the only thing that force me to reboot is a proprietary, closed-source driver…”
I agree. Unfortunately there’s no other option: ATi and Matrox also only provide proprietary drivers
All though I use KDE every day I completly agrees with you, but Konqueror isn’t a web-browser, it is uses KParts for different purposes like web-browsing and file management.
The problem is that the using KHTML in Konqueror is more or less locked in to the DE, all-though you can set another program for web-pages, it doesn’t seem too work 100% of the time since not all web-pages is of MIME-type “text/html” (like a few web-pages asp and aspx) and becourse KDE has to check the MIME-type it takes to long opening links.
I just wish that the people behind KDE would go after the protocol HTTP or FTP for that matter, insteed of MIME-type.
“However, to Microsoft’s credit, most of the time the crackers get their exploits from patches already released from Microsoft”
This is actually not entirely true. RPC DCOM was developed, Microsoft was informed, then it went public. I think LSASS had a similar history. MS itself is NOT discovering the biggest holes used by worms.
In some cases, perhaps there is reverse engineering of the patch. However, you need to cite a few cases to prove this, rather than quoting what you read from some MS official.
MS has some gaping holes in services that are running by default. Linux obviously has its own share of troubles, but many distros allow disabling of unneeded services and firewalling during the install phase.
Seriously! When will people get through their head that Linux is not A System. You can NOT talk about Linux and how usable it is.
Linux is one of:
1. A kernel.
A component of a system, interfacing only with system developers.
2. A gnu’ish collection of system components.
A complex name indicating certain desing choices among system developers. Still interfacing only with system developers.
A system/device should be judged on its usabililty merits once in its deployed state. In this category one MIGHT talk about the usability of Xandros, RedHat or Gentoo but it is still not deployed untill you speak of: “Sharp Zaurus SL-6000” or “Galaxis LinuxTV C” these are Linux systems deployed and ready for the general public.
“This is why I think Windows sucks since its CLI is the suckest CLI ever, I mean come on you have to run Command.com which only gives you Dos. You get no text browser or text ftp services, not even a good text file manager installed with windows.”
Right on 2 counts, but there is a command line text FTP client that is installed by default in windows. Try typing ftp sometime, and you will see there is a text ftp service.
:Right on 2 counts, but there is a command line text FTP client that is installed by default in windows. Try typing ftp sometime, and you will see there is a text ftp service.
Opps my bad, I use the command ftp in other OSs but since windows doesn’t have lynx or links or a PPP dialer I thought Dos just didn’t have any ftp.
I know you can get dialers, text browsers and text ftp programs (other the ftp command) for Dos but they aren’t there out of the box.
Another bunch of OS Myths, not all, but some of them… Windows is a bad Server OS, hey man thats isn’t true, WIndows 2000 and 2003 is a great server, Windows Server System (all MS Servers) is even greater, you can’t find nothing to come close to Windows Small Business Server 2003, it’s the Server System out of the box, working perfectly and you need 2 clicks to setup it. For the multimillion number of small businesses thats the killer app, and no OS can come close to it, when you have a small business, you don’t have zillion dollars budget for IT, and with WSMS 2003, you don’t need it, it’s just work out of the box. The other Windows Servers is great to, maybe you cannot use it allways to a mission critical jobs, but only 1% of customers need a mission critical OS, to the rest 99% of them the Windows Server 2003 is the best because the “do more with less” is the absolute true, and wheter you love or hate Microsoft, this is one thing that’s not only true, but true X1000. BTW I have WIndows 2000 Server, Windows 2003 Server, RedHat Enterprise 3 and Solaris in my working environment, and all of them have two sides, all of these Server OS-es are great products, but Windows Server need 1/2 the knowledge and 1/2 the money/time to operate, and thats the most important if you asking me. All of them are equaly secure or unsecure if you are a good administrator, there is no unsecure OS, there are onlu unsecure and stupid administrators. Less with UNIX (because they need more knowledge) more with Windows, but thats not the OS flaw its the flaw of the IT Department Human Resource… but that the one thing you cannot patch… not now and not in the future.
This must be a different meaning of the word “Debunked” that the one I am used to.
I’m no fan of DOS… but you have a CLI editor… just type
“edit” on the CLI. Also, on NT5 (i.e. Win2k) and up…. telnet runs in the shell.
🙂
You also have netstat.
And alas… for realwork you can by the MKS Toolkit or install the Cygwin stuff (in the 4 years since I started at an “MS Shop”… MKS or Cygwin have been my saviour).
LLTCLI
Long Live The Command Line Interface!
quack, quack, quack!
The first time I heard the term BSOD was in 1993. It was the “Black Screen of Death” which was something that afflicted Win 3.1 clients running NETX on a high traffic network. The screen would go black without an error message. From there the term morphed to describe any kind of error where the machine crashed completely and the only thing you could do was reboot. Win 95/98 can give a blue screen of death like “system error,” etc., and you have to reboot.
BSOD is slang.
http://www.guiadohardware.net/kurumin/
more easy to install programs than windows, with the magic icons.
>more easy to install programs than windows, with the magic
>icons.
i just wanted to add:
more stable, more free, more open, more virus & trojan free, more scaleable, more fun, more platforms, more developers, more unix.
The only OS’ i’ve seen that just work don’t have much of a job. Think Coke machine.
for the most part, 2000/XP pro(home is useless) are relatively stable.
question: doesnt java work in a “sandbox”?
last night, a java app I had to use crashed explorer 4 times in 30mins, and yes, I was using Suns JVM(correct ver for app req), not MS
@Quack Actually when running the command prompt in NT it is not a DOS prmpt, but what is called a Windows console. Yes you can create textbased applications using the Win32 API’s, just as you can create textbasd Java programs.
@Nic IMO – There are not much difference between XP Home and Pro ..
> My girlfriend is a total non-geek, and yet she uses her Linux desktop daily
so does my mother. she uses slackware. of course i had to install it for her, just as i had to install windows for her when she still used windows.
and she has zero problems using kde. in fact, she was very happy about not having to use double-clicks anymore (this has always confused her the most about windows: knowing if a double-click or a single-click was expected).
Most of you read the myth titles and don’t even bother to read what it says and you end up making a fool of yourself because you can’t read.
“in fact, she was very happy about not having to use double-clicks anymore (this has always confused her the most about windows: knowing if a double-click or a single-click was expected).”
You can do this in Windows as well. I never have been a fan of single clicking to open files, so I just leave as is or change to double clicking asap if its not enabled.
Don’t you all think that its great that there are at least three really good choices of PC operating system out there. There are probably many others as well. Why not enjoy the choice rather than batter the differences?
Regards,
Peter
– > Linux has better hdw support since it runs cross-platform, (the same thing means Intel to AMD for Windows).
-> Windows is easier to install : so much so, that manufacturers give you recovery CDs (which usually blitzes the hdd in the process) instead of the vanilla-off-the-shelf, as they would never hear the end of it on the HelpDesks…
Also try installing XP/NT2000 vs Xandros, Lindows, Lycoris from scratch and YOU tell me which one is easier.
-> Linux will only be ready for the desktop when you never see a console. Well, I guess it’s ready then, I’ve installed Xandros on most of my more recent units (Corel 1.2 on the others) and I never saw a console.
Wether it’s for hdw detection, software install, …etc.
PS: Installing software is actually EASIER on xandros than windows as we have the xandros_network, and you can just pick and choose and it does all the rest (1 click) !!!
Back to the GUI crashing thing. If you use Windows as a desktop & a server and the GUI crashes, I seriously doubt the “server processes” are still running. Linux IS different. Although I agree if you were using a desktop app – you’ve lost the data … CTRL-ALT-BKSP might just reset X – but you data is nonetheless gone. Still +1 for gnu/linux.
Linux just works … well it does for me !
Toodles !
Man, the bullets fly when you happen to bash APPLE!
And since I like to ALWAYS put in my 2 cents…here we go.
I think Apple makes a good machine when you pay for there top line. I bought an iBook a year ago (running Jag) and here are my impressions
1.) Hardware costs. Now I’m not talking about for the machine cause actually its was resonable. But I went for a memory upgrade and I ended up having to pay 200 buck instead of 100 bucks cause the 100 dollar memory that was supposed to work in a the mac didn’t. I tried various other types and out of a 512mb stick, only half it would read. So, I had to by “APPLE” memory.
2.)OSX speed on my iBook. Now, Panter might be different, and if it is GREAT! but Jag on that iBook was horrible. If I had 2 apps running then opened up itunes, them moved the itunes window around the screen, my MP3 would “skip”. And this was after my memory upgrade where I maxed out the ibook. I will day that linux ran AWESOMELY! I never saw debian fly so quick and the desktop performed well too!
3.) SMB leaving hidden files everywhere! I also noticed MAC SMB would leave small hidden files everywhere. WHY? (once again, theis might of changed in panther) Also had issues connecting with shares in Jag.
4.)Software from the non nerdy sense. I hear the arugment of software all the time and I hate to say it but most people are right, MAC is short on software. I say this because Joe user isn’t going to know about installing FINK and using X. So from that stand point its limited. If you happen to be of Geek Sheek then you have no arugement with the case cause you should know of X and Fink and shame on you for not looking into your purchase.
5.)ONE BUTTON MOUSE…..I’m leaving it at that.
6.)Jag seemed to suffer of broken links. I would customize the aqua bar with a short cut to the terminal and what not and then after a couple of uses, the link would no longer work.
I will say that PPC is a good chip and that apple has great designs. Its just I think they need to look at there low end product cause though I did like the ibook I thought it would have a bit more “bawls” than it did. I like haveing firewire on my laptop though :-D. I have been thinking of getting a PPC hobby board and making my own “MAC” of sorts.
I have a USB printer and it just worked with WinXP. NO setup disk required, the drivers in the WinXP driver database were perfect for it. That’s true of most of the USB printers I have attached to my PC. Eposn injet, HP laser, Brother Laser, Samsung Laser, etc. All worked just fine. But on my Mac dual-G4 box at work not evrry USB printer worked. Most did but the New HP A3 photo printer didn’t. It needed a CD for installation. I guess some printers are just not in the OS X driver database yet. Same goes for Linux, some printers simply are not yet supported. And same goes for WinXP but a lot less often. Having a near monopoly on the desktop does have some benefits for the people who use Windows.
If you were speaking of Win 98 / ME I’d believe you, but 2000/XP? Please. I do all my Java development at work on a Win2000 machine, been so for the last 2 years; never once froze, bluescreened, etc. I compile, install, uninstall, have people going through my machine to connect to a VPN; nothing bad. has ever happened. Can say the same for every developer around me too.
You are out of your mind. I don’t believe this for a second.. I work at a corporation with about brand new 30 Windows XP workstations (several months old). They crash all the time and freeze, what a nightmare. Of course, I’ve had this experience with my own XP machine for 2 years as well. I wouldn’t say it crashed every day, but at least every other day I had to use CTRL+ALT+DELETE.
Then I got a Mac…
How does the Mac have the ‘least’ amount of software? Statistically, there are more Mac users than Linux users.
They don’t make Photoshop, Illustrator, Quark XPress, MS Office, or really any major apps for Linux.. I imagine this will change soon.
Just for reference, all my computers are Macs or PC’s with Linux
B.S., not a chance – if you are running linux as a multiuser system or server – somebody’s desktop biting the dust is in no way equivalent to a system crash. The webserver will still be running the database will still be running, etc. If you’re running a desktop system for a single user, it’s still not the same thing – your system still finishes writing to disk so you don’t corrupt your hard drive…
Perhaps to the casual user it might appear to be the ‘same’ thing, but to admins and observant folks it’s most definitely not.
However, this is a moot point because the desktop doesn’t crash as often as Windows (pick a version here) anyway.
Will
“This must be a different meaning of the word “Debunked” that the one I am used to.” I’d agree. Not reading the whole article is probably resulting in a lot of flames about the “myths” list. from m-w.com, debunk is “: to expose the sham or falseness of <debunk a legend>”
This article is more like “OS myths examined”, or something to that effect. The article is a bit choppy, and incomplete, but does make some interesting points. I’m glad he didn’t add to much anecdotal “evidence” like “linux sucked at my shop” or “windows always crashes at work.” Anecdotal “evidence” is not a sound logical argument, since installations vary so much.
I am pretty late in sending this comment. I am amazed though, usually an article that touches in with this kind of issue generates a lot of flames, and so far, at the end of this first page, all I have seen are frank and honest opinions! THIS IS GREAT! personally I love my Macs, I can’t use Windows without pulling out my hair and given how often I use a computer, this makes it worth every ‘extra’ cent.
This is my comment then: ‘cost’ is not just what you pay in the beginning, but what you pay in upkeep, and how long it lasts in a usable state and how much time you ‘waste’ reinstalling and tweaking etc. and what your time is worth. If your time is worth nothing or you enjoy the tweaking, so be it, but if you actually have a job to do…
It is also learning curve and for that reason, most people will never switch platforms unless forced
I, as a few others have would also like to point out that you never refuted the myth of #6 because, it is trueish. Mac’s just work for many newbies and luddites but also offer through the terminal an almost Linux like level of fexibility, customizability, power and stability. thus for many (not all mind you) of us it is the best.
There’s a lot of discussion about the prevalency of spyware as an inherent flaw in windows. While this is true to an extent, it is not entirely windows’ fault. There are many circumstantial variables, and, of course, user error. In the many years I have used windows, I have never had any spyware or adware that I did not (albeit inadvertantly) agree to install. When you install Kazaa, for example, you get Cydoor, but if people were to read the license agreement like they’re supposed to, they would know that and be able to avoid it. Every time you click “agree,” you could be signing away your soul. Granted, I never read them either, but you must admit that this particular problem is not windows’ fault. You could argue that Linux users would be required to enter their root password, but if you were a newbie linux user installing something like Kazaa, and it asked you to enter your root password to install, you would do it, wouldn’t you? Then there’s the spyware that people install willingly, like that purple abomination, BonziBuddy. It tells you upfront that it monitors your internet activity to “help” you by presenting you with services you may be interested in. The gullability of the user seals the deal.
So that’s my argument for the “compromised user” factor, which could occur in any OS. The next thing to discuss is the major circumstantial factor for the prevalence of adware in windows. Windows is the dominant OS. It’s simply not very profitable to design adware specifically for Mac or Linux, because not many people use them. So, Mac and Linux get credit for being virtually parasite-free without even doing anything to deserve it.
One argument in Linux’s favour is the lack of cross-distribution compatibility. This prevents easy installation of complex adware programs that aren’t supposed to be there, but it’s also one of Linux’s most frustrating features in normal use (despite what people say, I’ve recently tried linux for at least the fourth time, and seen improvement in ease of installation for third-party programs and drivers that, while significant, is nowhere near what I would call “easy”).
I regret that I don’t know enough about the Mac to say it has no inherent advantage over windows in regards to adware; indeed, I would be glad if it did, since my next purchase is going to be a Mac; but if there is an advantage, I have not seen it.
In conclusion, I believe that any security flaws inherent in Windows play a relatively minor role in its adware/spyware problems. Feel free to prove me wrong, as long as it’s flame-free.
A, OS is basically like Linux, (UNIX with a GUI), and OS X is easy to use, you 97% of the time have no interaction with the terminal, and it;s interface is nice.