Linux

[ydoaPs]

I hate MS. I already scrapped IE and am considering changing my OS from MS to Linux. What are the pros and cons to changing to Linux?

[atinymonkey]

Con - No more games.

Pro - You can do more work.

Con - What's that button do? Oh, sweet jesus, no!

Pro - Geeky

Con - Geeky

[Klaynos]

It depends on what distrobution you decide to use tbh... some are great, some are not so great, depending what you want to do. The big thing that has already been said unless you want to pay for a windows emulator no more games (I duel boot for games)...

[1veedo]

There are some commercial games that play on Linux. Actually, more then most people think. Plus, there are free games you can play. Doom, Sim City, Unreal, Medel of Honor, Soldier of Fortune. and a few more popular titles. If you want, you can check out an article on Linux I wrote. I still need to add a couple sections, but all the "pros and cons" are there.

 

http://1veedo.homelinux.com/index.php?1veedo=linux

[Pangloss]

Con - What's that button do? Oh, sweet jesus, no!

 

ROFL!

 

Hey, it never hurts to learn something new, that's my motto. Worst that can happen is you end up going back to Windows. At least you'll have added something to your skill set.

 

Competition only works when people are willing to try different things.

[ydoaPs]

the only computer games i play(minesweeper and such) are on the distribution that i am looking at(knoppix).

[herme3]

I actually think that Windows XP is the best operating system available. It is compatible with almost all programs, and it is very stable. If you are having problems, there is probably a virus or spyware on your computer. I have Windows XP on my Compaq computer, and it has never frozen on me.

 

The good thing about Linux is that it is free. Other than that, I can't think of any advantages. Many programs won't work with Linux, and the tasks that are easy with Windows, take a long time to do in Linux. I would recommend staying with Windows.

 

You should also go back to IE. Many web sites don't work with other browsers. In fact, FireFox just leaked out the passwords of their members! They were too lazy to apply a security patch! Check out: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5790030.html?tag=nl.e589

 

Have you upgraded to Service Pack 2 for Windows XP yet? It fixed a lot of problems with Windows and IE.

[ydoaPs]

did you even read the article 1veedo linked to? you fell for every one of MS's "we are so great, linux is crap" lies. check out http://www.linux.org

[herme3]

Yes, I did read the article. It is full of lies. Microsoft's Windows XP operating system and IE are not full of bugs. Microsoft fixes any bugs they find immediately, and post the updates on WindowsUpdate.com.

 

Windows XP is very stable, and rarely crashes. The problem is always bad software installed on a computer, or a bad computer. If somebody buys a Celeron processor, it isn't Microsoft's fault that somebody's computer is too cheap to run Windows XP. These users have to find a low-quality operating system like Linux before their computer can run correctly.

 

Linux does not have very many features, so it doesn't take a good computer to run it. Microsoft includes many features in Windows XP, so you need a good computer for Windows XP to operate properly. A bad computer is like a AA battery. It may power a little flashlight, but it isn't going to power an entire house.

 

I would like you to name one bug that you know is in the latest version of IE.

[ydoaPs]

Are you sure you have Windows?

[Klaynos]

Yes' date=' I did read the article. It is full of lies. Microsoft's Windows XP operating system and IE are not full of bugs. Microsoft fixes any bugs they find immediately, and post the updates on WindowsUpdate.com.

 

Windows XP is very stable, and rarely crashes. The problem is always bad software installed on a computer, or a bad computer. If somebody buys a Celeron processor, it isn't Microsoft's fault that somebody's computer is too cheap to run Windows XP. These users have to find a low-quality operating system like Linux before their computer can run correctly.

 

Linux does not have very many features, so it doesn't take a good computer to run it. Microsoft includes many features in Windows XP, so you need a good computer for Windows XP to operate properly. A bad computer is like a AA battery. It may power a little flashlight, but it isn't going to power an entire house.

 

I would like you to name one bug that you know is in the latest version of IE.[/quote']

 

XP is very stable compared to older windows versions but I help sysadmin a server that has been running for around 18 months now without a single restart it is running as fast now as it was when it was first setup. It is running, a webserver, a dbms, several CGI style program things, a mail server (both incomming and outcomming), and an IRC server. It is using less than 50MB of ram. NO windows machine I have ever come accross could come anywhere near this.

 

I can recall at least 2 occurances in win XP's life where known secuirty issues have been released by security firms such as symantic and ms has taken over a month to supply a path for. IE is RIDDEN with holes.

 

To update the above server I have to type a single command:

 

apt-get upgrade

 

Which could be done automatically if I so chose.

 

I currently run Ubuntu a linux distrobution. It's FULL, clean install is 1.8GB, smaller than XP, and I have MORE features than a clean install of XP. It includes a professional image manipulation suite like photoshop, a set of office tools, database clients, networking tools, media software, and quite a number of little games.

 

As well as this I wanted a cad program to be added. There where 2 ways I could do this, open a little program and search for cad, pick the program I liked the look of and click install, it'd then download everything that is needed for that program, including everything else it requires to run, and install it for me.

 

Or I could go to a command shell and type: apt-get install qcad, as I knew the one I wanted was call qcad and it'd do exactly the same as above. With both these methods there is a little program that runs on my computer which checks for any update on ANY program I am running and tells me about it so I can just hit an update button.

 

The majority of professiona servers in teh world run linux or another *nix system WHY do you think this is teh case if Windows is more powerful.

 

IE security issues, I suggest you do some research. A quick google for: "IE security issues" gave me this link:

 

http://secunia.com/product/11/

 

hey look it's the current version of IE and covers the UNPACHED security issues.

[Dave]

I would like you to name one bug that you know is in the latest version of IE.

 

Besides the various security holes and other exploits, the fact is that IE is one of - if not the worst browser out there. The sheer lack of effort on Microsoft's part to adopt recognised standards is just appauling, really. Not to mention that it doesn't even have support for alpha-channel PNGs.

[Pangloss]

I grow weary of theoretical arguments of one operating system used to attack real-world issues that another one has to deal with. It's so ridiculous, but EVERYONE does it, from Linux fanboys to Microsoft marketing weenies, and everyone in between.

 

Just to give a couple of examples, the lack of existence of viruses and spyware in Linux has nothing to do with superior engineering, and everything to do with market share. All the security features in the world don't amount to a hill of beans if you invite a virus into your system with root access. And it makes no difference that your Apache browser can do everything in 50mb of RAM when RAM is $50/gig. Wake up, people, this is nonsense.

 

And it CERTAINLY doesn't make any difference how much RAM it uses when you're being denied service by a malicious attacker, who, by the way, also doesn't give a rat's ass what corporate logos you prefer!

 

I think Dave makes a good point about IE being a design that lacks substance, and challenging Microsoft's reluctance to adopt standards (except the ones they can "embrace and extend"). Those are valid criticisms. I think there's a counterpoint to be made about the way some of these "standards" are developed, but that's another argument for another day, perhaps. But there's nothing wrong with pointing out weaknesses in design.

 

All I'm saying is, fan-boy cheerleading doesn't save a company millions on infrastructure. I've been supporting networks for twenty years, and I can tell you from personal experience that what I intend to use in a network is a function of (a) what the money managers will let me get away with, and (b) what works. That's it. Any admin who says otherwise needs to refresh their resume.

 

You Linux fanboys need to wake up and realize that competition is a TWO-way street! Stop declaring the enemy (which is whatever happens to not be cool this week) to be evil and closing your minds to PERFECTLY VALID avenues of competition.

 

RUE the day when Linux takes over the world and all we have to work with is Linux. You get three guesses how badly that will suck, and the first two don't count.

 

Bah humbug. All intended in good fun, of course.

[ydoaPs]

RUE the day when Linux takes over the world and all we have to work with is Linux. You get three guesses how badly that will suck, and the first two don't count.

can't be worse than how MS rules the world

[Pangloss]

Microsoft rules the world? So how are able to run Linux, then?

[Pangloss]

can't be worse than how MS rules the world

 

That's a perfect example of the kind of bullsh*t I'm talking about above, by the way. "Let's exaggerate the situation all out of proportion just to make Microsoft look evil, completely ignoring any contributions they may have made, even if we have to use two-wrongs thinking, straw men, or any other kind of logical fallacy we can think of. The important thing is that people listen to 'The Truth'."

 

It's sad and tragic the extent to which that kind of thinking not only permeates the computer industry, but the readership at Science Forums, both entities which ought to know better than to fall for such closed-minded nonsense.

[ydoaPs]

did you not see the smiley? so far, it looks like Linux is a better OS than MS no matter what you say, Pangloss. if you have it, i'd like to see evidence that it isn't.

[Dak]

If i can throw my 2p into the arguments:

 

windows xp is hardly amazingly super-dooper cant-find-fault amazingly great, but its not too bad either; definately the best windows OS, and the best (from what i hear) for compatability. My main gripe is with the way in which it is set up by default (ie, not very good). The security holes arent that much of an issue for regular users, as long as you take the updates when available and have the proper complement of security programs (eg firewall, av etc) and use them properly, although it would be nice if there wernt SO MANY holes, ill admit (espescially for complete novices, who are likely to not have the correct security measures).

 

there are lynix viruses, just not as many (by far) as will effect windows OSs.

 

IE can be configured (with quite a bit of effort) to be very secure, but by default it is to malware as a net is to the wind, ie not very good at stopping it getting through.

 

much as i like FF, it does have flaws (memory leaks and a tendancy to crash. I also hear that the encryption it uses for its stored passwords is somewhat lacking), and there are security holes, but by-and-large it is more secure than IE, and -- inportantly -- it ships with the correct security settings as default.

 

Let's exaggerate the situation all out of proportion just to make Microsoft look evil, completely ignoring any contributions they may have made, even if we have to use two-wrongs thinking, straw men, or any other kind of logical fallacy we can think of. The important thing is that people listen to 'The Truth'."

 

I get -- and agree with -- what your saying pangaloss, but you cant deny that microsoft has some shady buisness practaces. The most recent one that springs to mind involves microsoft antispyware: having entered the anti-malware scene, microsoft then makes moves to purchase Claria (which may be more recognisable by their previouse name of gator/gain), who had made and spread a significant amount of both spyware and adware. This coming from a company who produces an anti-spyware program?

 

Furthermore, microsoft antispyware was then updated to have the default action for most of the claria/gator/gain products set to 'ignoor', which strikes me as pretty much a sneaky-bugger way of tecinically not removing them from the definitions whilst still aranging it so that ms-as doesnt remove it.

 

Microsoft have since scrapped plans to buy claria, but still it was a dodgy move, a company who makes an anti-malware program purchasing malware and changing their aforementioned anti-malware program to ignore the products by default.

 

As i said, this is but ms's most recent transgrettion; "Microsoft is evil" may be an over-exageration, but its easy to see where it stems from.

 

-----------------------

 

back to the original point, what are the good points of lynix (other than it not being m$?). I gather that there are alot less linix viruses etc than ones which run on windows OSs, but whats the benifit of having an XP/linux dual boot, from the POV of a regular user (ie, it'll be used to surf the net, wright documents, play a few games etc) with above average (but hardly leet) computery skills?

 

I haf to say, im actually quite fond of xp -- it takes a bit of messing about to get it to run on a below-spek machine and without getting infected, but its good enough at what it does.

[Aeternus]

I have to agree with Pangloss to some extent and Dak to some extent.

 

Let me just say, I love linux, i use it for my default desktop OS (Gentoo) and for a little server pc (Gentoo again) i run and I completely disagree with herme3, who said Linux lacks features. This is completely wrong in my opinion, yes, Windows XP or Mac OS X have features that Linux doesnt, just as Mac OS X has features that Windows XP doesnt and vice versa, but you have to understand that linux itself also has features that neither of the other two (or other OS's) have. I think herme3 made the statement with little research into the matter (no offense intended).

 

That being said, I do get very annoyed by the fanboy attitude and zealotry found in some areas, not just in linux but in other OS's too (yes there are Windows fanboys, Mac fan boys etc). These guys will slam other OS's to make theirs seem better, will overlook advantages in other OS's and tout up the advantages of their pet OS. Windows may have its problems, but so does any OS, and it does have its advantages (compatibility, ease of use, a large company backing it that can easily be held accountable for failures etc). Windows has its faults, Linux has its faults, Unix has its faults, Mac OS X/9/8/? have had their faults. No-one is perfect and no-one forces you to use any of them. In my opinion, use whatever suits you and whatever is best for a particular job. Sure compare OS's for that particular job, but don't slam another OS because you have found yours to be better than the other in your opinion for your uses. Others will use the best tool for the job in their opinion and for their uses, their opinion and advantages etc are what counts.

 

--------------------------------

 

yourdadonapogos,it looks like you want to use Linux purely because it isn't Microsoft made. That's your choice and you have your reasons. Have you considered Unix distros such as FreeBSD, OpenBSD and a plethora of others (google Unix)?

 

Id say the main pro of linux in general (not of one specific distro) is openness. If you are a fiddler or a tinkerer, and you are willing to learn a thing or two, you can easily adjust your environment to your needs very easily and edit and change programs or ... anything to what you want. This can be said of windows in some cases, but the open source nature of linux, in my opinion means this is much easier. There are other things such as increased stability in some cases, increased security in others but these can all be argued to kingdom come amongst Windows and Linux groups alike and to be honest, alot of the time its down to the user whether or not a system is secure (although the default settings in the majority of linux distros is considered by alot of people to be more secure, which is a plus). The con of using linux is pretty simple - you'll have to learn a new way of doing things. Easy as that. Sure some will argue its harder, some will argue its more complicated and you can't do X or Y. If you are willing to search around and do a bit of homework, you can usually find a way (the fact that you have to find a way may be a con but I its not something that is much of an inconvenience considering there are things you much overcome in any OS).

[Dak]

does linux being open source confer the same advantages as to be had with firefox, ie that there are quite a few extentions made by fans that can be downloaded (some of which are so odd/unprofitable that theyd have never have been made by companies) ?

 

in other words, could i search a database of wierd-and-wonderful 'updates' to my linix OS, in order to customise it to my needs?

[Pangloss]

I get -- and agree with -- what your saying pangaloss, but you cant deny that microsoft has some shady buisness practaces.

 

What does that have to do with the technical advantages or disadvantages of Windows? See, this just makes my point. It's just another straw man argument.

 

Deny it? I SHOUT IT FROM THE MOUNTAINTOPS, guys. I've been tracking Microsoft excesses since before some of you were a gleam in your daddy's drunken eye. I've done post-grad presentations on the subject. I've got one paper that I did on Microsoft's monopolistic practices attached to my online Vita/Resume. It's probably safe to say I know more about Microsoft's specific unfair trade practices in the 1980s and 1990s than most of you.

 

See, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Anybody who doesn't stand up and identify themselves as a Linux lover gets declared to be some kind of Microsoft stooge. Ridiculous! Just because I tout Windows doesn't make me a Microsoft fanboy. But saying that somebody else is a Microsoft fanboy just because they don't declare Microsoft to be always bad and always wrong DOES make YOU a stooge. (I don't mean you, Dak, I'm just ranting about hypothetical Linux-only dweebs. I don't know if that applies to you or not.)

 

Again, you cannot make two wrongs a right, or use straw man arguments, to say that Linux is better than Microsoft. At the very most, you can use that sort of reasoning to say that BOTH are flawed. But my argument is that they both have value!

 

Punch a hole in THAT, and I'm all ears. Keep touting Linux as the end-all, be-all, on the other hand, and all your doing is displaying your ignorance and closed-mindedness for all to see.

[Aeternus]

To Dak -

 

Sure, depends on what distro you use but most of them have package management systems that allow you to search and download various programs or updates to various parts of the system. Alot of stuff can be edited by hand using config files but there are numerous programs that will provide a GUI interface for this.

[Klaynos]

I'd just like to say I didn't mean to come over all fan boyish, and I duel boot with XP for my own needs, I just wanted to rebuff herme3's comments about linux.

 

MS themselves do do lots of good stuff, they fund lots of research alot of which they do not keep to themselves but publish for all to read.

 

Competition is always a good thing and I hope ms produce some excellent os's in the future.

 

As for the advantage of the open sourceness of linux, then I'd say the big advantage is anyone can release their own version, so there is a version of linux designed for nearly anyones needs (even ones for games using some interesting windows emulators who's names currently escape me based on wine). There are linux's like tinylinux, which requires 50MB of hard disk space, to enterprise systems designed for running large servers, and for clustering pc's into acting like a mainframe.

[Pangloss]

I thought your points were valid, Klaynos, and I don't think you came across as a fanboy. I imagine we're pretty much on the same page, you and I.

 

This thread started as a discussion on desktop systems, though, not web servers. I think in the web server department Microsoft is at a severe disadvantage, for the reasons you named (even the memory bit -- that makes a big difference when you're a web hosting company, for example). And of course this is reflected in the market share. (Note the complete and utter LACK of Microsoft "monopoly" in this area.)

 

As far as desktop advantages are concerned, there's the bit you mentioned about how Linux comes with more apps, which is typically true, and it certainly costs less (free). But those aren't really technical issues. In terms of the underlying structure of each OS, I don't think Linux has any major advantages over Windows. The advantages are almost entirely in the realm of perception and applications.

 

What we have now is a positive situation, because the two entities fight it out for market share. That's GOOD FOR US. If either one of them wins, it's BAD FOR US. It doesn't matter which one does the actual "winning" -- either way we LOSE.

 

That's my point.

[Dak]

What does that have to do with the technical advantages or disadvantages of Windows? See, this just makes my point. It's just another straw man argument.

 

It wasnt (intended as) a strawman. my comment was in responce to this:

 

Let's exaggerate the situation all out of proportion just to make Microsoft look evil, completely ignoring any contributions they may have made, even if we have to use two-wrongs thinking, straw men, or any other kind of logical fallacy we can think of. The important thing is that people listen to 'The Truth'."

 

so it had nothing to do with the technical advantages/disadvantages of windows over any other OS, and nor was it intended to come across as an argument against the tecnical dis-/advantages of windows OS (like i said, i quite like XP). so, less of your strawman accusations, you

 

Sorry for any confusion non-the-less. to clarify, it was in responce to your comment on people "exaggerating the situation".

 

a short version would have been 'yes the claims about ms being evil are over exaggerated, but it is grounded in fact'.

 

ms are hardly squeeky-clean. you must know (probably better than i do), having tracked their history, about the thing with windows media player (where they collected a list of dvds played), and the ad-words thingy and this new claria 'scandal', to name but a few.

 

microsoft may not be totally evil, as some claim, but their do have some desicedly questionably practacis. Not that that is relavent to the performance of their OSs, mind.

 

don't mean you, Dak, I'm just ranting about hypothetical Linux-only dweebs. I don't know if that applies to you or not.

 

nope. iv never even used linux. and, whilst im aware that deranged windows/linux/apple fanatics who mindlessly promote their favorite OS and outright slander the rest exist, i dont think that having a preference automatically qualifies someone as a zelot.

 

Again, you cannot make two wrongs a right, or use straw man arguments, to say that Linux is better than Microsoft. At the very most, you can use that sort of reasoning to say that BOTH are flawed. But my argument is that they both have value!

 

id argue that theyre both flawed and they both have value