On Why Linux is Better than Windows

Originally posted by InsideYourMind

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.

Games are locked in to consoles too. You can't play X-box 360 games on PS3 and vice versa. Windows gets all the game releases because it is the dominate OS companies don't want to waste the money investing the time and resources into OSes with a non existant market share. Mac's are starting to get a better market share and commercial games are being released in the App Store.

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

Yes, that's why I said that an operating system is just a tool, some people need some things, other people need other things, most people don't know what they need.

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.

I think it was Unreal that, in Windows, was faster if we used the OpenGL version, until they issued a patch that solved the DirectX problem.

Internet explorer, having its own "standard".

It looks like IE 10 will be compatible with real standards, and IE 9 is already much better at that than IE 8.

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?

To be honest, I haven't seen a page with VBScript or JScript (the Microsoft version of Javascript) in many years, even Microsoft samples of how to make web pages use Javascript instead of any proprietary method. The biggest problem with IE is the way it interprets things on a HTML page, like happens with other browsers.

Even though the webpage should work fine... people neglect the fact that if it only runs on windows, then you shouldn't use it.

IE specific things only work in IE, and at the moment IE only works on Windows, unlike what happened with IE 5, that also worked in Mac OS and some Unix systems.

Originally posted by PharohGnosis
Games are locked in to consoles too. You can't play X-box 360 games on PS3 and vice versa. Windows gets all the game releases because it is the dominate OS companies don't want to waste the money investing the time and resources into OSes with a non existant market share. Mac's are starting to get a better market share and commercial games are being released in the App Store.

That's what i was trying to get across. Of course different consoles games won't work with each other.... but the matter of fact is the same game will usually be released on all platforms that can support it (graphical, processor wise). Windows can be installed onto an identical piece of hardware which is running Linux.... yet the same game cannot be used on the same computer.... is what i was trying to say.

Windows does not get "the games" because it is dominant, it is because of licensing agreements with microsoft for most commercial developers. If a game is coded properly so that it is easily portable (take quake 3 as a perfect example)... there really is not much effort involved in porting it to a different platform such as Linux. There are millions of people who use Linux and also play games. Guaranteed that if someone ported a Game to Linux, one which was actually good... there would be profits. Non-existant market share is not the reason.... Linux is open source and requires no license to be sold to the user, and because of that there is no "market-share" because you cannot count every single Linux user.

The problem why Windows gets "all the toy" if you would like to put it that way, is because the developers either suck at writing portable code, or they have some kind of licensing agreement with microsoft.

It is the same problem as to why it is hard to find a computer that does not include windows in the price from a high street retailer. These stores are forced to sell PC's with windows installed to dominate the market. I can guarantee you that windows would not be the most common OS if it had not been for Microsoft's forcefull agreement's with these retailers. People assume that windows is free with a new PC so they just use it because of that fact.

Windows does not get "the games" because it is dominant, it is because of licensing agreements with microsoft for most commercial developers. If a game is coded properly so that it is easily portable (take quake 3 as a perfect example)... there really is not much effort involved in porting it to a different platform such as Linux. There are millions of people who use Linux and also play games. Guaranteed that if someone ported a Game to Linux, one which was actually good... there would be profits. Non-existant market share is not the reason.... Linux is open source and requires no license to be sold to the user, and because of that there is no "market-share" because you cannot count every single Linux user.

Agreed. My wife is a good example of the kind of computer user you are talking about. Having gotten hit by Windows Viruses and Trojans a few times, she now runs Linux. Much faster, she says. She has some 150 games that came with her Linux, all she had to do is download than using her package manager. She also installed Wine, which allows her to play her favorite game, Bejeweled 2, only available for Windows, on her Linux computer. Her IP address cannot be read, her browser header has been modified, and her network is secured. She is a member of this forum, I will see if she would like to comment on this thread.

Can anyone imagine for a minute how today's Internet would be if every Server ran Windows? One little virus would shut down the entire affair. This reason alone will ensure that Linux will always be, and more and more people are using Linux everyday, including entire universities.

Originally posted by autowrench
Can anyone imagine for a minute how today's Internet would be if every Server ran Windows?

Windows servers are not as bad as the desktop versions.

I used for some time Windows 2000 Server instead of the desktop version because it was much more stable and faster.

Originally posted by InsideYourMind

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.

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.

Stop posting disinformation.

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

Shiny buttons snide remarks eh? You mean like Gnome Shell, Unity, and KDE? You're blind hatred of Windows amuses me.

reply to post by PharohGnosis


Nobody is forced to use Gnome Shell, Unity, or KDE. It's a choice.

That is what you do not understand.

Originally posted by InsideYourMind
reply to post by PharohGnosis

 

Nobody is forced to use Gnome Shell, Unity, or KDE. It's a choice.

That is what you do not understand.

That is the default for most distros so that will be people's first experience with it.

This is an interesting debate. I tend to be the designated computer repair person when it comes to my family and friends. The one thing I've found is problems don't usually stem from the OS, but from the users competency. Doesn't matter what OS it is, they will find a way to mess it up. It doesn't surprise me that 90% of the computers in a repair shop have Windows and adware/viruses on them. But that doesn't really mean anything though. It just means that Windows has the market share, and the average computer user has no idea what they are doing, hence, their PCs are sitting in a computer shop.

For the average user that is going to use their computer for facebook, youtube, photos, email, etc, it doesn't matter what OS they have. As long as there is a firewall and whatnot, they are good to go. These kinds of people don't spend their lives in front of a screen, either. They are relatively harmless to their machine. If they are using a computer it's at work, or at home for an hour or two in the evening.

It's the folks who feel an unjustified sense of comfort behind their computer that end up getting in trouble. They have no idea how to find reputable software, websites, and entertainment. Let's install this! Let's download that! Oh this toolbar looks useful! I agree that that is one of the great advantages of Linux, and if you have a relative or friend that tends to do this, and no matter how much you try and teach them, they still repeat it, try and get them on Linux.

The only problem with Linux, still, is compatibility. One snag in a Linux install (which, if it's anything like in my house, you are probably installing for them, while they watch over your shoulder), they will want Windows back on the computer ASAP. If they want a game, I can guarantee you they won't want to mess with Wine. Same deal with iTunes. If they want to use the junky proprietary software that came with their HP printer/scanner to handle all their photo stuff, they are SOL. If they don't like the GUI, they won't replace it themselves, because they won't know how, and you'll end up doing it for them. It would require a complete reeducation, which most people outside of the typical nerds aren't willing to go through.

With the Linux vs Windows vs Mac debate, when we bash one OS or another, we are essentially arguing on behalf of the people whose computers we fix. The only difference is that when it comes to Windows users, we are typically fixing windows computers as well, we know the issues, but we know how to properly use our own PCs, so it's no skin off our backs, and that's why we aren't exactly feeling deprived of some sort of technological freedom.

Obviously everyone in this thread is pretty well informed, biases aside, and could competently use any OS set down in front of them. Most people though, not a chance. And it's not a matter of them "Drinking the Koolaid" or "Being good little sheep" It's just that it's not even on their radar. I say it's easier to teach someone what not to do than throw them into completely new territory.

reply to post by PharohGnosis


Default or not, it can be uninstalled and completely removed form the system.

In the argument of "windows is better".

Can you do that on windows with the explorer interface? no.

reply to post by InsideYourMind


At least it creates something called standardization which Linux sorely lacks.

Isn't there a pretty vibrant Windows desktop mod community out there? Seems to me that I've seen a handful of replacement shells for Windows. If I'm mistaken, I've at least seen a bunch of heavily modified desktops that look very different from the default desktop environment, so the users have modified them quite well to suit their personal needs and tastes. Once again, these are things that only advanced users will do. Out of the box, to me, all the OSs out there stand on pretty level ground. In the typical OS debates the meaning of "better" pretty much comes down to personal preference, past experience, and the various mindsets/philosophy behind that particular OS.

Windows: "It's the standard, everything works with it, it has it's flaws but, meh."
Apple: "This expensive piece of aluminum and glass makes me look creative!"
Linux: "But it's free man! Stickin' it to M$! I can make it do stuff those n00b M$ users don't even think about."

That being said, I've used Windows XP for years with no problems, I'm indifferent towards Vista, though one machine has it installed, and I'll probably buy 7 next time I build a PC. Most of my family doesn't have problems with their Windows machines either, after learning what not to do. I've also got Ubuntu installed on another desktop, and I'll be putting Arch on a spare laptop after I physically repair it.

Originally posted by InsideYourMind
Can you do that on windows with the explorer interface? no.

Yes, we can.

Originally posted by PharohGnosis
reply to post by InsideYourMind

 

At least it creates something called standardization which Linux sorely lacks.

I'm sorry but that is very arguable. Microsoft's "inventions" are the biggest destruction of standards compliance in computing to have ever existed.

They implement non-standardized document markup languages
They implement non-standardized css / html functions
They implement non-standardized filesystem hierarchy's
They implement non-standardized graphics api's
They implement non-standardized audio/video codecs
They implement non-standardized settings storage

All of this being apart of windows, I can go on and on here, when something which already does the job and exist's in a freely available open standard already in use exists.

It is nothing more than a monopoly of vendor lock-in.

One word for GNU/Linux... POSIX.

GNU/Linux and author's of other open source tools/software write programs that are alot more standardized than you seem to think. Windows is the worst example of computing standards ever, and this is why i despise it. All they do is reinvent the wheel with a padlock attached to it.

I mean, half of these "argument's" claiming Linux is crap, is just repeated claims from the early 2000's which still isn't even true. You completely contradicted yourself.

I'm not one to go making threads about "why windows sucks" or whatever, because i don't give two turds about what windows can or can't do. The thing that annoys me is when people like you repeatedly post misinformation about something you have never used and claim it is trash. Cmon, what are you a shill for microsoft or something?

If you claim Linux is crap because of the desktop choices, first you forget that Linux is a kernel, GNOME/KDE as examples, are open source projects. They can be run on anything from Solaris to NetBSD to GNU/Linux. They have nothing to do with Linux generally speaking.

If you don't like the desktop that came with a certain Linux distribution, find another one. If you can't... write your own. That's the beauty of it. If you don't like that, then stick to windows and stop moaning about how Linux sucks, ok? It's just sad.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by InsideYourMind
Can you do that on windows with the explorer interface? no.

Yes, we can.

You can't get rid of the explorer interface even if you happen to be running windows on a server. It's impossible to remove or deinstall.

Originally posted by InsideYourMind

I'm not one to go making threads about "why windows sucks" or whatever, because i don't give two turds about what windows can or can't do. The thing that annoys me is when people like you repeatedly post misinformation about something you have never used and claim it is trash. Cmon, what are you a shill for microsoft or something?

I've installed and used many Linux distros since 2008 and that is why I know it sucks. It's buggy, has bug regressions, terrible Nvidia graphics card support, Linux can't seem to handle doing common things without opening the terminal to get something to work. It's not arguments from 2000 but 2012. It's a hodge podge OS that's why it's junk and has so many problems.

Just because I like Windows doesn't make me a shill, I find that statement funny because you paranoid types can't accept that people actually like Windows. Windows 7 is a great operating system. I've never had any viruses, crashes, or blue screens with it and I've been running it since it came out in 2009.

You just can't admit Linux is inferior. It's had 20 years to try to gain any significant market share on the desktop and has failed. Consumers rejected Linux netbooks and instead chose Windows XP, and now Windows 7 netbooks.

Even Microsoft makes money off Android because of patents. You still end up giving money to a big company on the smartphone market so you can't use that argument either

Originally posted by PharohGnosis

I've installed and used many Linux distros since 2008 and that is why I know it sucks.

Good for you?

Originally posted by PharohGnosis
It's buggy, has bug regressions, terrible Nvidia graphics card support, Linux can't seem to handle doing common things without opening the terminal to get something to work.

How is Linux "buggy". As far as Nvidia support goes, they provide an official kernel driver.... which is in fact based on the same codebase as the windows one. I use Nvidia and it works perfectly fine here, i have had no problems with it in a long time. Assuming the windows nvidia support is utter crap aswell according to you?

If you need to open a terminal for everything then you might want to actually install some gui frontends for some programs? Or rather, use a distro that comes with a filemanager and an audio player for example?

Originally posted by PharohGnosis
It's not arguments from 2000 but 2012. It's a hodge podge OS that's why it's junk and has so many problems.

No, you argument is the same one that has been going on since the day Linux was born. It may have problems, but you would not understand in the slightest as most problems in Linux only affect developers relating to the kernel and not the user. Because you approve that windows is somewhat superior, you fail to understand all operating systems have their problems as this is not a perfect world.

Originally posted by PharohGnosis
Just because I like Windows doesn't make me a shill, I find that statement funny because you paranoid types can't accept that people actually like Windows. Windows 7 is a great operating system. I've never had any viruses, crashes, or blue screens with it and I've been running it since it came out in 2009.

You are posting with a Linux hating attitude, calling it trash or junk, yet you really seem to know absolutely nothing about it. Honestly, what is there to like about windows? I do accept some people "like" it. But tell me why do you hate Linux, you have not mentioned any viable reason as to why you hate it other than your "it's trash" rhetoric. to say you have never had a virus when using windows for more than a year and connected to the internet... don't lie.

Originally posted by PharohGnosis
You just can't admit Linux is inferior. It's had 20 years to try to gain any significant market share on the desktop and has failed. Consumers rejected Linux netbooks and instead chose Windows XP, and now Windows 7 netbooks.

Why would i admit to complete garbage facts based on nothing but your opinion? It's had 20 years to what?

AGAIN, you fools hating on Linux for no reason whatsoever don't understand the fact that open source software which cost's nothing.... IT HAS NO MARKET SHARE.... JEEZ! you cannot tally up every purchased "Linux license" and get a "market share" because of the fact that it is a product which isn't even sold in the first place.

Show me some factual statistics stating that consumers rejected Linux please? Personally, I know many people who have used a Linux powered netbook in the past without even realizing it themselves.

Originally posted by PharohGnosis
Even Microsoft makes money off Android because of patents. You still end up giving money to a big company on the smartphone market so you can't use that argument either

Linux != Android.

Android is merely based upon the Linux kernel, it is what we call a fork. The android patches written by google employee's have not even made it back into the mainline Linux development tree, for reasons i am not completely sure about. However that said, the people who write Linux and submit patches to Linux Kernel itself... have nothing to do with android.

You fail to realize that open-source code with a permissible license means anyone can "clone" the existing code, improve it, pass it on, and ship it with hardware of their choice (as long as they provide the source themselves). This is what google has done with android.

They don't "sell" android. The hardware is sold with android installed, in the case of tablets, phones etc.

The fact that patents are an issue, is an american problem. Microsoft is effectively a monopoly as i said in my last post, the same goes for Apple. Software patents covering algorithm's or simple functions in a piece of code are ridiculed by sane people, as they are not inventions, and they can be implemented in many different ways.

Give me a break. What next?
Hurrrr Durrrr, Linux doesn't play sound? Clearly if you despise Linux so much after having claimed to have used it, you are obviously not able to grasp basic task's of using a computer.

Originally posted by InsideYourMind
You can't get rid of the explorer interface even if you happen to be running windows on a server. It's impossible to remove or deinstall.

It's possible not to use the explorer interface, but I never tried to remove explorer.

I will try and post back my results.

reply to post by ArMaP

It's possible not to use the explorer interface, but I never tried to remove explorer.

It can be done, there used to be a script on the net that would do it for you. The script removes IE, and half of the Windows Shell, which as you know is based on the embedded browser, Internet Explorer. Then there was another program that replaced the shell. Windows became very unstable after that.

The Australian computer scientist Shane Brooks demonstrated that Windows 98 could in fact run with Internet Explorer removed. Brooks made his work available as a freeware removal utility called IEradicator, which removes all versions of IE from all versions of Windows 9x. Another programmer named Bruce Jensen published a similar utility called "Revenge of Mozilla." Shane Brooks went on to develop more a more sophisticated program for Windows 98 and ME, marketed as 98lite, which turns IE, along with several other "mandatory" Windows components, into optional components that can be added or removed from the OS at will. He later created XPLite, which renders many parts of Windows 2000 and XP into optional components. Both of Brooks's programs can remove IE after the installation of the operating system. There are other methods of removing IE based on modifying the Windows installation process so that IE is never installed in the first place. 98lite can be used in this way. A method developed by Fred Vorck[11] manually alters the setup scripts for Windows 2000 to prevent the installation of IE. His process has been automated as a feature of HFSLIP. nLite and HFSLIP are automated programs that allow users to modify the Windows installation process, both to incorporate patches and updates and to exclude IE and many other Windows components from installation as desired. Removing Internet Explorer does have a number of consequences. Some programs bundled with Windows, such as Outlook Express, and some basic Windows components, such as Help and Support, depend on libraries installed by IE in order to function. With IE removed, they may fail to work, or exhibit unexpected behavior. Several common 3rd party applications, Intuit's Quicken being a typical example, depend heavily upon the HTML rendering components installed by the browser. For this reason, most of the IE removal utilities offer the compromise option of removing large parts of IE while still leaving behind the HTML rendering engine or "IE core," which allows many of these 3rd party applications to function normally. Also, in versions of Windows before Vista, it is also not possible to run Microsoft's Windows Update or Microsoft Update with any other browser due to the service's implementation of an ActiveX control, which no other browser supports. In Windows Vista and Windows 7, Windows Update is implemented as a Control Panel applet.

Source
Now in Linux, right now I have Firefox, Seamonkey, and Konqueror browsers. My Windows Manager is Dolphin, not a Browser, a Windows Manager, and even that is not embedded. I can add, or remove any program I want to, and not bother the shell at all. I also do not have Microsoft looking over my shoulder, taking a snapshot of my hardware, and making sure my installation is "Genuine."
In my opinion, construction of an operating system with an embedded web browser/window manager is never a good idea. Also, when you purchase a computer from a store, you only have one browsers, and many users are just afraid to download and install another browser.

Originally posted by autowrench
It can be done, there used to be a script on the net that would do it for you. The script removes IE, and half of the Windows Shell, which as you know is based on the embedded browser, Internet Explorer. Then there was another program that replaced the shell. Windows became very unstable after that.

I thought we were talking about Windows Explorer, not Internet Explorer.

I was expecting more shell replacements for Windows, but it looks like most of the ones I knew from some years ago disappeared or stopped being developed.

I tried Aston Shell and, as expected, it replaced Windows Explorer as the program that starts when Windows starts and that controls several things, including the desktop.


As Windows Explorer wasn't running it could be removed (after disabling Windows File Protection or removing explorer.exe from the dllcache folder).



Any file manager can be used then instead of Windows Explorer.