On Why Linux is Better than Windows

reply to post by ArMaP


Upstream - Ubuntu 11.10 with Gnome 3 desktop - I have never been a fan of Ubuntu so I cannot compare the two, but I will say it is a huge leap forward from Mint 9 and Peppermint which I had been using. I haven't had the opportunity to get into the guts of it yet, as I've just downloaded it, but upon first look it appears to be positioning for tablet use...

I decided to leave PC Linux, something going on there that strikes me funny. I installed and played with Fedora 16 for two days, but, I have an Nvidia chipset board, and the drivers were buggy, wouldn't render my collection of photos in the screensaver. The new Grub 2 is very hard to configure, the old Grub in Fedora 15 is much easier. I like a nice elegant verbose text boot on my machine, not a flashy GUI like you Windows users are used to. Even running a proxy server, and strong firewall, Firefox is still really fast, and the whole computer is instantly responsive. Fedora is not for a beginner, for for an experienced Linux user who likes an RPM based distro, Fedora is the way to go.

Originally posted by LadySkadi

I just jumped from Mint 9 to Mint 12 (now using Gnome 3) and I'm a bit blown away at the difference. There has been a significant design change and I'm not really sure of the stability of certain aspects (MATE Gnome 2 compatibility) etc. has me feeling out of my comfort zone. Anyone else make this change yet and have you any must know tips/tricks?

www.linuxmint.com...

Yes, Mint 12 is pretty, but hardly usable (for me). The MATE desktop is ridden with bugs, which is understandable as the project has only just kicked off and has a really small dev team at the moment.

Gnome 3, however is not my cup of tea. I've not been able to like it one bit since the preview release (and played with the latest version on mint 12 for a few days).

The easiest way out, if you just want a solid working desktop is to try out XFCE or LXDE environments.
They are classed as lightweight (use hardly any ram, low cpu etc), good for both old and new computers. Though you can get XFCE to look exactly like GNOME 2.X, you really won't notice much difference other than the menu layout and the lack of bloat.

Linux mint, does in fact have XFCE & LXDE editions, they both come across as a typical desktop layout (one panel, with a menu, similar to windows). you should be able to install them both on an existing linux mint install too.

I've just switched from XFCE to LXDE on ArchLinux here, it's the snappiest "full desktop" i've used so far. Very Fast. Really do not like the idea of Gnome3.

Another suggestion, to continue using the Gnome 2.x desktop (with security patches/support) is to try out one of the long term stable distro's that package the gnome desktop.

CentOS 6
RedHat Enterprise Linux 6
Scientific Linux 6
Debian Stable

They will have Gnome 2.x available for a long time.

You are certainty are right on about Gnome 3. I played with it for a day, and finally gave up. I have always been a KDE man anyway. If you want a new distro, based on Fedora, but with Gnome 2, try CentOS.
I have never ran it, but I totally love Fedora. I ran Mint for a time too, back a few years ago before Gnome 3 came out. Also ran Super OS until I upgraded and got Gnome 3. I wonder when the makers of these distros are going to get it, we do not like, or want, Gnome 3?

Fedora 15 KDE 86_64.

Originally posted by autowrench
I decided to leave PC Linux, something going on there that strikes me funny. I installed and played with Fedora 16 for two days, but, I have an Nvidia chipset board, and the drivers were buggy, wouldn't render my collection of photos in the screensaver. The new Grub 2 is very hard to configure, the old Grub in Fedora 15 is much easier. I like a nice elegant verbose text boot on my machine, not a flashy GUI like you Windows users are used to. Even running a proxy server, and strong firewall, Firefox is still really fast, and the whole computer is instantly responsive. Fedora is not for a beginner, for for an experienced Linux user who likes an RPM based distro, Fedora is the way to go.

LOL just because they ban you for starting a 32 bit vs 64 bit argument you think their distro is shady? It's hard to believe you work with computers. They banned you because you be sub-standard tech advice.

Originally posted by autowrench

I was simply trying to show reasons why Linux is better, but I see Microsoft has some of you forever. I am not saying that is bad, but take a good look at your investment, and then know that my OS was totally free. That is the big difference here.

Keep convincing yourself that Linux is better because it's not. No one wants your join your fanatic Open Source Religion. You Linux fanboys are worse that Mac Heads. At least Mac has a better shot at gaining significant market share because it's standardized and works without having to fiddle with command lines and glitchy graphics drivers.

At least with a proprietary OSes they sink in a ton of money into R&D and usability studies. Bugs get fixed and things improve. With Open Source it takes forever for bugs to get fixed if at all. KDE took forever to fix the bug where it couldn't find hidden SSIDs in the KNetwork Manager. Linux isn't Christ it can't solve all computer problems and Linux it's self has it's own variety of problems, pretending otherwise makes you a liar.

Windows isn't bad like you try to make it out to be. I haven't had any viruses or system crashes in years. Also I noticed in your posts you tend to blame Windows for hardware related crashes, it's not Windows 7's fault if its a faulty piece of hardware.

Enjoy your Linux cult, not everyone wants to drink for that Kool-aid you're trying to pass out.

How about some facts....

Originally posted by PharohGnosis
Keep convincing yourself that Linux is better because it's not.

Speaking for yourself. I find i cannot do things on windows because it lacks easily available development tools. There is also no unix shell on windows, so it becomes useless to me. I would rather type to control my computer than click a shiny button every time i want to enable/disable a service. Sorry, but CMD prompt is a complete joke for programming and automating tasks.

Originally posted by PharohGnosis
No one wants your join your fanatic Open Source Religion. You Linux fanboys are worse that Mac Heads.

No one's inviting you. Besides, why would anyone want to be a windows fanboy? What is there to be "proud" about? Hey everybody i'm an average joe who only uses windows because it came with my pc!

Originally posted by PharohGnosis
At least Mac has a better shot at gaining significant market share because it's standardized

GNU/Linux isn't about marketshare, it's open source... there are no statistics on desktop's in use, there is no license to pay in order to run it. You seem to not understand by using the term standardized. Mac OSX is a mixture of code from open source projects such as Darwin, the Mach kernel, and FreeBSD... the licenses they are released under typically allow people to redistribute modified programs without having to provide source code, heck even windows has some FreeBSD userland tools in it's default setup. POSIX is a standard for unices (unix based or unix clones), FreeBSD uses the POSIX standard, Linux does, even Mac OSX does.... windows does not.

Originally posted by PharohGnosis
and works without having to fiddle with command lines and glitchy graphics drivers.

A mouse typically has 2 buttons. That is 2 fingers being put to use at one time when clicking that shiny shiny button on the screen. I have 8 fingers and 2 thumbs, during the time you can press 3 buttons i may have typed a whole sentence. I find that using a keyboard is faster by a long shot, and gives you more control to fine tune any command with whatever option or flag you need.

If your complaining of glitchy graphic driver's, you should buy hardware that is known to be well supported. If you still have problems then you are doing something wrong.

Originally posted by PharohGnosis
At least with a proprietary OSes they sink in a ton of money into R&D and usability studies. Bugs get fixed and things improve. With Open Source it takes forever for bugs to get fixed if at all. KDE took forever to fix the bug where it couldn't find hidden SSIDs in the KNetwork Manager. Linux isn't Christ it can't solve all computer problems and Linux it's self has it's own variety of problems, pretending otherwise makes you a liar.

I'm sorry but it took microsoft a period of 6months+ to fix a SERIOUS remote vulnerability in internet explorer. You cal that "fixed"? you must also be forgetting about the shortcut icon vulnerability in windows that was found last year, it exists as far back as windows 95, you call that secure???

Typically with any open source project if a problem arrises it will be patched within the hour or day depending on the size of the project's team. Usability studies are worthless... let the user do what they want by not restricting anything, don't dictate the user. As for KNetwork manager, it is open source software, if you feel it is broken, improve it and submit a bug/patch to the project's developers.... I do agree GNU/Linux has some problems.... nothing is perfect. But you have to admit that windows has many problems, in fact i call them design flaws.

Originally posted by PharohGnosis
Windows isn't bad like you try to make it out to be.
I haven't had any viruses or system crashes in years.

Yes it is.
Why do you run an anti-virus? Because the operating system is insecure in itself.

Originally posted by PharohGnosis
Also I noticed in your posts you tend to blame Windows for hardware related crashes, it's not Windows 7's fault if its a faulty piece of hardware.

A device driver should not allow the WHOLE operating system to crash. This is the major design flaw within windows. Removable media should never make a whole operating system result in a kernel panic.

Originally posted by PharohGnosis
Enjoy your Linux cult, not everyone wants to drink for that Kool-aid you're trying to pass out.

Not everyone wants to use bloated software that is impossible to remove or modify.
Have you ever even used Linux? Or was it just too advanced for your liking?

Stop posting disinformation.

reply to post by InsideYourMind


At least Windows users aren't condescending like you.

Originally posted by InsideYourMind

Not everyone wants to use bloated software that is impossible to remove or modify.
Have you ever even used Linux? Or was it just too advanced for your liking?

Stop posting disinformation.

edit on 10/1/2012 by InsideYourMind because: (no reason given)

LOL how is GNU/Linux more advanced? It's an OS based off Unix created by Bell Labs in the 1960's. Hardly advanced. It's ancient technology.

I've used Linux for two years. It's easy to see why it will never gain any significant foot hold on the desktop. It's even away for free and people still don't want it. That has to tell you something.

Originally posted by InsideYourMind
Speaking for yourself. I find i cannot do things on windows because it lacks easily available development tools.

What type of development tools are you talking about?

There is also no unix shell on windows, so it becomes useless to me. I would rather type to control my computer than click a shiny button every time i want to enable/disable a service.

To disable the Google update service, for example:
sc config gupdate start = disabled

Sorry, but CMD prompt is a complete joke for programming and automating tasks.

Have you looked at Windows PowerShell? (I haven't, but I know that it exists )
I think Windows PowerShell only works in Vista or 7 (or the server versions), for scripts in older systems you can also use VBScript and other languages, by using the Windows Scripting Host.

A mouse typically has 2 buttons. That is 2 fingers being put to use at one time when clicking that shiny shiny button on the screen. I have 8 fingers and 2 thumbs, during the time you can press 3 buttons i may have typed a whole sentence. I find that using a keyboard is faster by a long shot, and gives you more control to fine tune any command with whatever option or flag you need.

Most of the time I use buttons or menus instead of commands so I can use my memory for something else besides memorising commands. As my memory is more graphic than textual, it works better for me.

A device driver should not allow the WHOLE operating system to crash. This is the major design flaw within windows. Removable media should never make a whole operating system result in a kernel panic.

That was a big mistake made during the development of Windows NT, as they couldn't make the graphics faster they move them into the kernel, creating the famous BSODs. I don't remember it well, but it looks more like a business decision (we must ship something) than a technical decision, and any company that sells their software is more likely to suffer from that than any Open Source project.

Not everyone wants to use bloated software that is impossible to remove or modify.

Impossible to remove?

reply to post by PharohGnosis


No, thay banned me for mentioning the 64 bit version. You are not allowed to discuss it in the forum, you must join a "Google Group" to have that discussion. I found that to me draconian, to say the least. So, I took apart the source code, and looked it all over, and there are some open ports by default, these were not open in the 32 bit version. I do not trust Google, I have their cookies blocked from my computer.

Originally posted by ArMaP
What type of development tools are you talking about?

Perl, Python, Ruby, GCC, Bash, automake, autoconf, glibc, SDL, git, svn
Most of that stuff just exists preinstalled on almost any GNU/Linux desktop, or is available by typing one single command to install it. I cannot see why anyone would be using windows and use cygwin to hack their way around running those tools on windows.... pointless.

sc config gupdate start = disabled

I wouldn't have anything related to google on my computer in the first place, although i was reffering to userspace daemons in general. Anythign that is designed to run as a daemon on Linux/BSD typically comes with an init script to start/stop the service by the same command. In windows there is no standard and everything is a mess and you end up with 300 programs using 300 different method's to start or stop their userspace daemons.... besides most stuff in windows will run as admin even when it is not needed.

Have you looked at Windows PowerShell? (I haven't, but I know that it exists

)
I think Windows PowerShell only works in Vista or 7 (or the server versions), for scripts in older systems you can also use VBScript and other languages, by using the Windows Scripting Host.

VBScript is not a language and PowerShell is not a unix shell, it only runs on windows, therefore it is useless. The same for "powershell" it is far from powerful and restricted to one platform with it's own made up "standards". If it only works on vista or 7 why would i use it anyway? A good piece of software works on all versions no matter how old they are. Just the idea that you would have to pay for "yet another license" to carry on using your shell.... well that says it all.

Most of the time I use buttons or menus instead of commands so I can use my memory for something else besides memorising commands. As my memory is more graphic than textual, it works better for me.

It's slow. But that's why people use windows, they either don't know anything else exists... or they care about usability rather than being able to get the job done quickly.

That was a big mistake made during the development of Windows NT, as they couldn't make the graphics faster they move them into the kernel, creating the famous BSODs. I don't remember it well, but it looks more like a business decision (we must ship something) than a technical decision, and any company that sells their software is more likely to suffer from that than any Open Source project.

Open source software is released when it is ready. There's one example of quality.

Impossible to remove?

Windows is not modular. It has everything crammed into it so that it becomes bloated. Some people might not even need a graphical desktop and might simply want to run a thin client that they can tunnel into and use a simple getty or framebuffer to do their work.

Windows has no public source code that can easily be recompiled by the user in minutes... therefore it is useless to me as i do not want someone else in control of my computer. For instance, i do not need or will ever use a printer or bluetooth device... so i would like to disable and remove any code related to those devices from my kernel... that cannot be done in windows and will be loaded at startup everytime, effectively wasting ram and adding more overhead to the kernel's memory.

I really have not needed to use or look at any windows software in several years, i won't even need or want to use it. It's the fact that there is no way to know what is happening on your computer with windows. also that with unix/linux/bsd they follow the UNIX philosophy that everything is a file, software is written for one purpose, to do one thing, and to do that one thing well, that makes it modular. I also want to control what my computer does... i do not want it "phoning home" every 5 minutes to some obscure web domain with scrambled info that could be my private details. Microsoft willingly and knowingly does this.

The other problem with software on windows is that it "tries" to do everything. Including having it's own built in "updater". Why would you install 300 pieces of software that each update themselves with over 300 different methods and contact 300 different remote web domains in order to download and update those 300 pieces of software from over 300 different sources? That is the biggest joke ever. And yet again, it cannot be automated efficiently, as on windows everything is focused with clicking a button. I'd rather be enjoying my time using a computer than being forced to commit manual labour.

The other problem with software on windows is that it "tries" to do everything. Including having it's own built in "updater". Why would you install 300 pieces of software that each update themselves with over 300 different methods and contact 300 different remote web domains in order to download and update those 300 pieces of software from over 300 different sources? That is the biggest joke ever. And yet again, it cannot be automated efficiently, as on windows everything is focused with clicking a button. I'd rather be enjoying my time using a computer than being forced to commit manual labour.

I heard that, friend. I work on Computers for a partial living, and 95% run Windows. Configuring a Windows Computer to run secure and still be fast, without executing code all the time, and saving everything you do, it about as manual as it gets. Linux makes security easy, most Linux come with a default Firewall, already running. I can decide what services run and do not run. I can erase any program without corrupting my drivers file, and Linux comes with all of my hardware drivers already compiled. I would't run Windows even if Microsoft paid me.

Originally posted by PharohGnosis
LOL how is GNU/Linux more advanced? It's an OS based off Unix created by Bell Labs in the 1960's. Hardly advanced. It's ancient technology.

I've used Linux for two years. It's easy to see why it will never gain any significant foot hold on the desktop. It's even away for free and people still don't want it. That has to tell you something.

Straightening up the facts...

Linux is in fact a clone of the UNIX kernel, it is not UNIX. It does follow POSIX standards though... which makes it a "unice" or a "unix-like" kernel.

If you want to go by the "ancient = worthless" approach. Microsoft windows existed prior to the first Linux release. In fact it was called MS-DOS... windows is built from MS-DOS originally. So that argument completely fails for you.

Just because you do not want it doesn't mean others don't want it. to me it looks like you are unable to break loose from the vendor lock-in scenario that microsoft imposes with just about every product they sell.

I'll leave you with this; to ask yourself that if linux is not advanced, then why did the NSA develop SELinux, why does the american military use GNU/Linux, why does the Brazilian, Portugesse, Turkish, North Korean, Chineese (just to name a few) governments and schools mostly use, develop, and redistribute their own GNU/Linux variant's or kernel patches?

For example;
www.nsa.gov...
www.spi.dod.mil...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

I think you are contradicting yourself. Surely if GNU/Linux is ancient technology then they would all be promoting and endorsing money towards windows.

Originally posted by InsideYourMind

If you want to go by the "ancient = worthless" approach. Microsoft windows existed prior to the first Linux release. In fact it was called MS-DOS... windows is built from MS-DOS originally. So that argument completely fails for you.

Microsoft removed DOS with Windows NT & Windows XP. Windows stop being a DOS shell a very long time ago and no longer related. Linux is still using 90's technology.

You might want to read this en.wikipedia.org... and en.wikipedia.org...

Also this is a good read:
Unix Hater's Handbook

Originally posted by autowrench
Linux makes security easy, most Linux come with a default Firewall, already running. I can decide what services run and do not run. I can erase any program without corrupting my drivers file, and Linux comes with all of my hardware drivers already compiled. I would't run Windows even if Microsoft paid me.

LOL Windows XP SP2 had the built in firewall turned on by default. I haven't had any problems with Windows 7 corrupting drivers from uninstalling programs.

You are on the bottom of the shoe on desktop OS users. Why do you have to keep trying to convert people? Linux is a niche market and will never grow beyond that. People don't give a flip about hippie FOSS philosophy. They want products that work.

Linux is rubbish. Why do you think people pirate Windows instead of downloading one of the 300+ Linux distros? It's because Linux is buggy, unstable garbage. Windows works, and works darn well. Desktop Linux is dead, get over it.

Originally posted by InsideYourMind
Perl, Python, Ruby, GCC, Bash, automake, autoconf, glibc, SDL, git, svn
Most of that stuff just exists preinstalled on almost any GNU/Linux desktop, or is available by typing one single command to install it. I cannot see why anyone would be using windows and use cygwin to hack their way around running those tools on windows.... pointless.

Is cygwin really needed for all of those? I have installed Perl and Python for some specific programs, and there was no need for any extra.

In windows there is no standard and everything is a mess and you end up with 300 programs using 300 different method's to start or stop their userspace daemons.... besides most stuff in windows will run as admin even when it is not needed.

The command I posted can be used to control any service, regardless of maker or how it was installed. Once it is working as a service it can be controlled by the sc command, including the user that will be used for starting the service. Once more, the fact that some (many) need to use administrator privileges is a result of bad programming practices used by the thousands of companies that make software for Windows.

VBScript is not a language and PowerShell is not a unix shell, it only runs on windows, therefore it is useless.

OK, I understand it now, you were talking about the Unix shell, not of alternatives. But why do you say that VBScript is not a language?

It's slow.

It depends, some things are faster done with the mouse (and the left hand, as I usually use both at the same time).

But that's why people use windows, they either don't know anything else exists... or they care about usability rather than being able to get the job done quickly.

Or the other possibilities do not work as people want, that was the reason why, in the company where I work, we didn't move from Novel to Apple and ended up with Windows 3.1, after a hardware faillure on an Unix (SCO System V, if I'm not mistaken) computer.

Windows is not modular. It has everything crammed into it so that it becomes bloated. Some people might not even need a graphical desktop and might simply want to run a thin client that they can tunnel into and use a simple getty or framebuffer to do their work.

You can configure Windows to make it load the program you want instead of the Explorer and the associated desktop, I tried some programs some years ago, one of them was based on an Unix/Linux minimal desktop manager, but I don't remember the name (I think it was a short name, maybe some acronym).

But it's true, Windows is far from modular.

For instance, i do not need or will ever use a printer or bluetooth device... so i would like to disable and remove any code related to those devices from my kernel... that cannot be done in windows and will be loaded at startup everytime, effectively wasting ram and adding more overhead to the kernel's memory.

I understand now what you mean, and I think you're right, although I haven't looked into that topic.

Microsoft willingly and knowingly does this.

What part of Windows does that?

Why would you install 300 pieces of software that each update themselves with over 300 different methods and contact 300 different remote web domains in order to download and update those 300 pieces of software from over 300 different sources?

Are you talking about Windows or other programs? As far as I know there is only one source for Windows updates.

And yet again, it cannot be automated efficiently, as on windows everything is focused with clicking a button.

I suppose that you do not use a GUI in Linux either, as they are also focused with clicking buttons.

And many things can be automated in Windows, some by using VBScript.

Originally posted by InsideYourMind
I'll leave you with this; to ask yourself that if linux is not advanced, then why did the NSA develop SELinux, why does the american military use GNU/Linux, why does the Brazilian, Portugesse, Turkish, North Korean, Chineese (just to name a few) governments and schools mostly use, develop, and redistribute their own GNU/Linux variant's or kernel patches?

The small, cheap computer that the Portuguese government distributed to primary schools (named "Magalhães") used a Portuguese Linux distro, Caixa Mágica.

Originally posted by PharohGnosis
LOL Windows XP SP2 had the built in firewall turned on by default.

Yes, but it wasn't as good as a "real" firewall. The firewall shipped with Vista or Windows 7 is much better, but doesn't have all the possibilities of a really good firewall.

Linux is rubbish. Why do you think people pirate Windows instead of downloading one of the 300+ Linux distros?

Because it's easier.

The fact that a Linux system may look a little strange or even frightening to someone used to Windows doesn't mean that Linux is rubbish.

It's a tool, like any other operating system; some people like to work with it, some people do not. Some people may not know how to really use it, some people do not, but you cannot blame a hammer if the person using it doesn't know that they can use the claw at the back to remove the nails.

It's because Linux is buggy, unstable garbage.

I never had any stability problem with Linux, as I haven't had any stability problems since I started using Windows 2000. And there isn't any large piece of software that doesn't have bugs, the way they correct the bugs is the important thing.

reply to post by ArMaP


I'll just quote this one; These linux vs windows argument's never end lol

The fact that a Linux system may look a little strange or even frightening to someone used to Windows doesn't mean that Linux is rubbish.

The same can be said for windows, OS X, etc. It all depends on the user and what they want to do.

For instance if a user just wanted to do common tasks, any OS would be viable. As in;
Writing documents, pdf, or whatever. Playing the odd game, browse the web, email, im, music, videos... you get the idea.

It's just like cars. They mostly do the same thing, but in different ways, some are faster than other's and some are better at turning... the important thing is that the user is still mostly the cause of accidents (breakage). I see windows as pointless, because honestly it's only good for commercial gaming, i find i can do everything and more on Linux. It's rare for companies to release native Linux games but it has happened (quake, doom, unreal tournament a few good examples). It doesn't mean gaming is impossible on Linux, it's just that companies do not bother due to stranglehold of microsoft. One example here is DirectX, its a closed source "cripple" which encourages game developers to use it when developing on windows... in the event you wanted to release it on Linux, or Mac... alot of time would be spent porting the graphics layer to OpenGL. Most dev's wouldn't think it was worth the time. If they had just made the game with OpenGL in the beginning.... as it runs on any platform without restrictions such as DirectX.

It's things like DirectX, being a closed "standard". Internet explorer, having its own "standard". Office, having it's own "standard" for storing documents in xml-style formats. It's as if microsoft is purposely making up their own implementations to stop people from easily using the same "document" or "game" or "webpage" on another platform. Can you imagine the poor granny who bought a refurbished computer with Ubuntu Linux installed for a cheap price and visiting a webpage, only to be displayed with "this site only works on internet explorer" because the webmaster decided to write his webpages using some kind of microsoft language such as vbscript instead of _javascript? Even though the webpage should work fine... people neglect the fact that if it only runs on windows, then you shouldn't use it.

The main thing i do not like is vendor lock-in. Say if you buy a game for windows, you can only use it on windows, in the event you get fed up with windows, your game will be useless most of the time. But this is why there are game consoles. Game consoles make windows useless "to me" as i only see windows good for gaming, in the sense that it hogs all the game releases. Even thought at the end of the day, most commercial games would work fine if the companies recompiled as Linux binaries.