Linux

[weknowthewor]

Is any better OS than Linux?

[insane_alien]

depends on the criteria of 'better' some OS's are better than others at certain tasks. you need specifics here.

[the tree]

Linux is all round excellent, there is extreme variety between different distributions which some would argue is Linux's most appealing feature and some would argue is it's greatest weakness. A computer running K on Debian is very different to a computer running Flux Box on SUSE even if they are using the same Linux Kernel. Which is better is very subjective.

 

Aside from the major differences within Linux, there's not that many other operating systems to chose from, each of the ones that there are have their own major advantages.

 

Microsoft Windows - A driver for every piece of hardware you could possibly have purchased, compatibility with lots of proprietary software, fairly simple interface, all the advantages that come with popularity.

 

Unix - Outstanding stability, scalability, support. The OS of choice for serious or hardcore computing.

 

BSD - Aside from the esoteric appeal, BSD is closer to a "free Unix" than Linux is and knows it. Mac OS X is one distribution of FreeBSD and we all know that crashing a Mac takes more skill and luck than trying to impress a girl with your knowledge of Linux.

 

Of course there are others, but I don't think they're worth noting (someone is bound to disagree here)

[alan2here]

I suspect the MAC Croud would object to you trying to piginhole macs into being a type of linux.

 

I use Windows XP, I know I suck. I use it because it runs the software I want to use not because it is a nice OS.

[the tree]

I suspect the MAC Cro[w]d would object to you trying to [pigeon-hole] macs into being a type of [L]inux.

In what way did I do that? OSX is a distribution of Free-BSD, completely separate from GNU-Linux.

Besides? Who cares what the Mac Crowd think? Apple are perfectly willing to say where their software comes from, and I'd assume they'd know better than their fanboys.

[-Demosthenes-]

I suspect the MAC Croud would object to you trying to piginhole macs into being a type of linux.

 

Their both derived from Unix, rather than OS X being a type of Linux.

 

Unix > BSD > Darwin > Mac OS X

\/

Linux

[the tree]

Although of course, Linux was essentially just an imitation of Unix.

I'm sure it could be argued that there are only two significant families of Operating System.

[1veedo]

BSD is an imitation of Unix as well. I'm surprised you said this, the tree, "BSD is closer to a "free Unix" than Linux is and knows it." Anybody who knows anything about the history behind these operating systems knows that Linux was more like Unix than BSD was (BSD has grown up a lot though).

 

After running across Linux for the first time, John Hall famously said, "By that time I had been using UNIX for probably about fifteen years. I had used System V, I had used Berkeley, and all sorts of stuff, and this really felt like UNIX. You know...I mean, it's kind of like playing a piano. You can play the piano, even if it's a crappy piano. But when it's a really good piano, your fingers just fly over the keys. That's the way this felt...and I was really impressed."

 

After trying Linux, Hall went on to influence the development of Alpha Chip support and brought it to his company (Digital). This was a big move in the right direction for Linux and was the first time Linux moved out of the "basements" of computer nerds and into corporate computers -- eventually out doing at&t itself.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Hall_(programmer)

 

Linux shipped with the source code which is what Unix used to do for a long time. Today we talk about about proprietary and free software but back then it was just "software." Software was always free. Maybe not in cost (at&t charged upwards of 10,000 usd) but software always shipped with its source code (including Unix). When companies started closing their code base, the computer industry took a turn for the worse.

 

Today it's not which operating system is better but which platform is better. Free software or proprietary? You can chose just about any free operating system (Mac, Linux, BSD, but lets exclude less mature ones like Hurd) and they are all mostly functionally the same. They all run X, they're all Unix-like (certified by The Open Group), and they have source available. Programs that run on Linux run on FreeBSD run on Mac. The exception here being that Macs do some things that FreeBSD/Linux dont but Apple still contends "we try to keep Darwin as compatible as possible with FreeBSD."

 

So here we have "two significant families of Operating System." We have Windows as a proprietary OS. And then we have free software; BSD/Mac/Linux.

[the tree]

I meant that BSD is closer because it used Unix, whereas Linux was started from scratch (I may be mistaken here).

 

Just to clarify, shipping with source code does not make software non-proprietary or open source.

[-Demosthenes-]

Although of course, Linux was essentially just an imitation of Unix.

I'm sure it could be argued that there are only two significant families of Operating System.

Unix based and Windows based?

 

Just to clarify, shipping with source code does not make software non-proprietary or open source.

 

Open source software under the GPL is different that "free" software that might cost nothing or might have their code public. If not under the GPL license the code may be still "locked down". You probably can't use it in your own programs, reverse engineer it, or modify it and distribute it. Open source code you can do almost anything with.

[1veedo]

It doesn't have to be GNU. BSD for instance constitutes free. Something can be "free" by this definition and you still pay for it in cash.

 

Anymore you can make more money servicing your product then you can selling it. Ubuntu for instance makes enough selling support to ship free CDs w/ the OS on it (you dont even pay shipping).

I meant that BSD is closer because it used Unix, whereas Linux was started from scratch (I may be mistaken here).

The Network Releases were 100% non-at&t but the people who wrote it intended for it to be a "free Unix." The university had been working w/ at&t for a long time before they closed everything up so they knew a lot about how it worked. It sold for $1000 under the BSD license -- meaning after you payed the $1000 you could do whatever you wanted with it. It wasn't a clone of Unix though. Even after Network Release 2, the BSDs had some growing up to do. It came up short of at&t's Unix.

 

So I guess you are right there -- it has an integrate history w/ Unix where Linux was original just a way to get GNU running on a 386.

 

Unix didn't run on the 386. Linus had a 386 and wanted Unix. So he made Linux. At the time most people running Unix ran GNU on top of it. So on the outside Linus's first Linux distro was pratically identical to Unix. Linux + GNU Bash + GCC. You could then install everything you'd use on a Unix computer. It was like swapping out the Unix kernel for the Linux kernel and leaving everything else. It could run non-GNU stuff but Linux very quickly got released under the GPL and most of it's users were happy to stick with free software.

[the tree]

It doesn't have to be GNU. BSD for instance constitutes free. Something can be "free" by this definition and you still pay for it in cash.

Yes, but making the code avaliable doesn't make that code free. For it to be free the end user must have the right to modify the code and apply it for things other than it's original use.

(not suggesting you don't know this, just making sure it's clear)

 

Unix based and Windows based?

Well POSIX and DOS, but yeh, I guess.

[bascule]

Is any better OS than Linux?

 

For a desktop, MacOS X or Windows Vista are both going to be better choices, in my opinion (I'm on MacOS X now) Ubuntu is great, but MacOS X and Vista both have it beaten in terms of both features and application availability.

 

I think the Flash 9 port to Linux makes clear some of the fundamental problems that still remain. While the Linux Standards Base is trying to make Linux an easier target for developers, there remain gaping holes in the sorts of functionality it covers, whereas Windows and OS X have firmly cemented developer APIs that make them easy to target.

 

As for a server, Linux is probably your best bet, although for a fileserver Solaris or FreeBSD with ZFS is probably the better choice.

 

And yes, thanks to the USL lawsuit none of the open source BSD operating systems today share a single code with Unix, by legal necessity. That's what SCO sued IBM over in regard to Linux (and lost)

[1veedo]

I'm going to have to disagree with your opinion about features and applications. With the advent of Vista, many people are starting to seriously consider alternatives to Windows.

 

A lot of the new features in Vista have been present in other operating systems, such as Linux and Mac OSX, for a long time. "Vista's interface looks a bit like Apple's OSX and some Linux desktops... Many of Vista's features aren't brand-new." [1] Linux has always had Windows beat in features. Vista is trying to add a bunch of features in an effort to reduce the gap that exists between XP and Linux, but early reports about Vista are that it's still behind. A comparison by BYTE.com of SUSE Linux and Windows Vista, for instance, finds that SUSE has better features.

 

When it comes to software, Windows wins for commercial applications but Linux, FreeBSD (and OSX), have far more free applications [2]. Free software is oftentimes much better then commercial alternatives; for instance apache2 vs iis, firefox vs ie, and the number of office apps that are better than Microsoft office. Apache2 runs on Windows, but poorly, which only further illustrates the problem of free software on Windows.

 

Free software can do just about everything you could imagine exception for a few niches. There aren't any particularly great financial apps for Linux, for instance, and there isn't a photo editor that can match photoshop. So the sword goes the other way; there are commercial apps that are better then open software. I'll be the first to say that sometimes a little bit of money can make a great piece of software. Despite being a fan of open source, I dont mind spending money for things like computer games. Especially if they run on Linux

 

We have to be careful to not equivocate here though. Saying Linux runs fewer commercial apps doesn't mean it only runs free software. Actually, business/it software, like IBM markets, commonly runs better on Linux. IBM even feels obligated for some reason to help people switch from Windows to Linux. They not only do this for new, inexperienced customers (just starting a business for instance), but also for those who have been in the industry for a while [3].

 

Installing applications is another area that Linux has Windows beat. Package managers fetch everything you need right off the Internet. Typically on Windows, the user is forced to download installers and run wizards but on Linux, everything is automatic. On top of this, when you install Linux, it usually comes w/ thousands of applications right out of the bag [4]. On Windows you usually only get a couple of applications.

 

I'm not about to go through all the downsides of Windows; everyone knows them. Poor stability, security, crashes a lot, slow, etc. Windows enjoys certain benefits over Linux and Mac OSX as well. For instance, XP runs 30~20% faster then Xorg for 3D graphics (in other words, games. But in related news, Vista is 10~15 slower and provides poor opengl support, rendering quake 4 at a mere 30fps for 640x480).

 

It can change very quickly after you've ran Windows for a while. Windows systems progressively get slower and slower. Running a game on a "used" Windows computer would probably result in slower performance than Linux. This is all trivial though as most studies compare fresh Windows installs.

I think the Flash 9 port to Linux makes clear some of the fundamental problems that still remain. While the Linux Standards Base is trying to make Linux an easier target for developers, there remain gaping holes in the sorts of functionality it covers, whereas Windows and OS X have firmly cemented developer APIs that make them easy to target.

According to Adobe, "Adobe Labs is currently featuring prerelease versions of the Flash Player 9 Update software. This release includes bug fixes and support for additional operating systems—specifically Linux."

 

The reason Flash 9 took so long on Linux was because "Linux" (as the collection of distributions), is very non standard [5]. I think this is a perfect example for my argument here. I've been saying for a long time that Linux needs to standardize. This is never a problem if you're dealing with free software, because configure is good at finding things and building software specialized for any system. Files can be located in completely different places (hell, you can be running a completely different architecture!) and you can still build the program from the exact same source .gz/bz.

 

Adobe didn't run into any technical "problems" per say. They're just taking some extra time to make sure it runs on all the different versions of Linux. You have to remember, Linux itself isn't an operating system.

 

Any programmer will tell you that Linux is a much better system to develop on. Even reference 3 (the Robert Frances Group) indicates this. Codding culture you can find on IRC is that, "Noobs program on Windows w/, what is it these days, Visual Basic?" This is why many open source applications don't run on Windows.

 

Still, proprietary software sometimes has problems dealing with this issue so I'd have to say I agree with you here, even if you appear to not understand the problem. This isn't anything bad against Linux itself. It just illustrates the number of different types or "flavors" of Linux there are. Some call this Linux's greatest strength. Others, it's greatest weakness. I prefer the latter.

 

 

notes

 

[1] Miller, Michael. "The Truth About Vista." PC Magazine 25 April 2006.

[2] http://people.freebsd.org/~murray/bsd_flier.html

[3] See their comprehensive Linux guides such as "Windows-to-Linux roadmap" or their Linux Technical Library. This is because Linux has a much lower TCO, plus other advantages.

 

"Linux provides a lower overall TCO compared to Windows or Solaris for J2EE application server environments; RFG found Linux to be 40 percent less expensive than similarly configured Windows on x86 systems, and 54 percent less expensive than Solaris on SPARC.

...

It is available for a broad range of hardware platforms, and is cost-competitive when scaled well both horizontally and vertically. Further, it enjoys solid ISV support, and is available from a number of vendors in several licensing and support models. Linux is thus a flexible platform for enterprise application workloads, and IT executives should explore these aspects to maximize the long-term value of their Linux deployments. Ultimately, RFG believes IT departments must be extremely agile and flexible in order to successfully meet current and future service demands. Data collected in this TCO study shows Linux is not only less expensive, but also provides a range of monetary and strategic benefits yhat help meet these needs. A move to Linux is thus well-aligned with these goals, and RFG believes IT executives should seriously evaluate Linux for their companies' application server workloads. " (Robert Frances Group. TCO for Application Servers: Comparing Linux with Windows and Solaris. 2005)

[4] http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop

[5] http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/11/21/2138216

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If you want to be scared about Vista, read this.

 

IMHO, Linux is still lacking compared to Windows in several areas (having lots of free software doesn't mean you have lots of good free software... OpenOffice still needs work, for example) and it certainly needs hardware vendor support before it can go much further.

 

1veedo: As for standardization, take a peek at the Portland Project.

[casperl]

... and it certainly needs hardware vendor support before it can go much further.

 

Yes i agree with this part of the comment. Based on my experience, if you dont have a relatively old pc, it is difficult to find all drivers installed after installation but windows is more powerfull on this (at least vendors provide windows drivers with cd).

[the tree]

I prefer OpenOffice to Microsoft Office, Firefox to Explorer and I don't play that many games so there is no real reason for me to be using Windows. My laptop is brand new (well, just before Christmas) and yes I did come across a hardware issue but I don't see it as Linux's flaw that a lot of drivers remain non-free.

 

I guess, what it all comes down to (as shown in Bascule's post) is what on earth you want an operating system for.

[1veedo]

The irony is that Linux actually has better driver support then Windows -- as far as numbers are concerned. Linux will run on just about anything but it wont detect your projector.

 

For a while, actually a couple years if I remember, Windows didn't even support 64bit. Windows, still doesn't support 2G+ RAM (Vista might).

 

If you use anything but ATI, you're in business. I've never had trouble supporting hardware but I've only run Linux w/ a Celeron + i910 and AMD64 + nvidia. Both graphics cards work great and of course it runs on both processors.

 

Lost of external hardware, of course, has problems. I always double check things like printers and mp3 players just to make sure they work. Some of the cheaper mp3 players dont use mass storage.

[bascule]

Is any better OS than Linux?

 

As a desktop OS, Mac OS X is still better than the best desktop experience I've ever had in Linux (Ubuntu Edgy)

 

Ubuntu is nice... OS X is nicer.

 

Windows Vista is quite nice as well, but comes with all sorts of downsides like DRM and Activation Updates.

[the tree]

As far as niceness is concerned, I would guess that your talking about the desktop environment (for one, the terminal UI for Ubuntu and OSX is exactly the same) and the applications that come with it. In which case the hugest difference I've noticed is Apple's Finder which simply is the best file manager there is. It beats Nautilus (Ubuntu's default IIRC) or Konqueror (Kubuntu's one) hands down.

[Klaynos]

Finder really annoys me, macOSX i very snazzy OS though, yeay for BSD! And it's certainly very pretty.

 

I've used ubuntu on lots of different kit now, including laptops with ATI cards and the only issue I have is that I want some very odd bespoke control on the touch pad and I often have to make a small config change (change 2 to 3 or 3 to 2) when I turn it on, but that's because I'm doing very odd stuff. It worked fine with a projector, including some odd usb interface that did scrolling stuff.