On Why Linux is Better than Windows

Originally posted by InsideYourMind
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.

I believe this is a bit of an unfair statement. The same could be said of people who experience virus and malware problems using Windows.



"Better" is such a subjective term. Better for who? For users in general, I question where the line is drawn between the advantages of customizing and controlling aspects of a system which -most- users don't care about, and the disadvantages of a lack of compatability with the day to day software they use, stability issues, hardware/driver issues, etc which most users -do- care about.

If you are an advanced user, and do care about all that stuff, then it's a great system, because you can tinker with it until it works properly, and you can work out whatever bugs there are. If you are a user who, like most people out there, want the crappy HP photo software, or want the Windows Live Messenger client (and not pidgin or something else), need Photoshop, a program your company makes you use for work, tax software, MS Office (and not a substitute) then Linux is a very unattractive option, because that stuff doesn't work without Wine (which is still iffy for some things) and it requires learning something new, which the majority of Windows users don't have the time or desire to do. They -need- that OS. The idea that the debate can get so heated because fanboys and fangirls (non offensive use of the term) think their own preferences and needs matter to others, is kind of silly. If people want Linux, cool. That's a personal preference for them, and in some cases a form of protest. Windows and Mac are the personal preference of the masses, who seem to be generally satisfied with them. They are made for wide appeal, and provide just about every piece of software or hardware the masses could need, and more than enough for any user out there to satisfy their niche tastes, they also have the advantage of mainstream support.

Always an interesting debate, but ultimately a fruitless one

Originally posted by InsideYourMind
to say you have never had a virus when using windows for more than a year and connected to the internet... don't lie.

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.

Lol you can use Windows while connected to the internet without getting any viruses or malware. It's called Firefox or Chrome with Ad Block Plus. Also Windows has the firewall turned on by default. Avoid downloading pirated software, and shady sites, etc and you'll be good to go.

Linux users come off as elitist and your attitude just proves it. The Linux community is a joke and does more to damage Linux by driving people off. You'll never break into the desktop market face it. People would by Macs before dealing with Linux. I've used Linux on and off since 1999 when it wasn't so easy to install. It's come a long way since then but it's still not there yet. If it ever wants to become consumer friendly it needs to standardize and not have so many package managers, installers, GUIs, network managers, etc. You fail to understand consumer marketing. If you learned Windows you'll know Windows, if you learned Mac you'll know Mac but with Linux each distro is so different. No one wants to learn all that stuff they just want to sit down and use it. That is why Mac's are gaining a market share, people will turn to Apple when they want away from Windows.

Linux is still unpolished and %1 desktop market share will be where it stays until it's improved upon more. It's taken it 20 years to get where it's at today, it's still far behind and honestly another propriety OS would fill the void if Windows ever ceased to exist.

Originally posted by ArMaP

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.

They are one and the same to IEradicator, you have to install another window manager after you take Explorer away. We used to do this when running Windows 98 SE, that has been a long time ago. Like I said, I began to run Linux in 2001 after getting hacked in a really bad way.

Originally posted by autowrench
They are one and the same to IEradicator, you have to install another window manager after you take Explorer away.

They may be treated as the same by IEradicator, but they are not the same, even if Explorer uses (I don't really know if it does) Internet Explorer components.

We used to do this when running Windows 98 SE, that has been a long time ago.

I only had Windows 98 installed for 30 minutes, I quickly returned to Windows 95 and waited for Windows 2000.
In my opinion, Windows 98 and ME were the worst versions ever.

Things have changed since then, as Windows 2000 introduced many changes in the way Windows works.

Originally posted by PharohGnosis

Linux users come off as elitist and your attitude just proves it. The Linux community is a joke and does more to damage Linux by driving people off. You'll never break into the desktop market face it. People would by Macs before dealing with Linux.

.....

Linux is still unpolished and %1 desktop market share will be where it stays until it's improved upon more. It's taken it 20 years to get where it's at today, it's still far behind and honestly another propriety OS would fill the void if Windows ever ceased to exist.

Absolutely, couldn't agree more. And that's what we are seeing now. The fact that someone would rather buy an expensive new system like a Macbook or iMac than download a free OS speaks volumes about where Linux still is. After I built a new computer for the first time, I decided to give Linux a try on my old one. My first distro, like most people, was Ubuntu. I believe 7.04 or 7.10 was the first I tried. It installed OK, but would frequently just shut off. No clue why. It would just shut off. Not shut down, shut off. My computer never did this when Windows was installed, so that was disappointing. But, I gave Mint a try and it seemed to work fine, so it stayed on there for quite a while.

Now, that first experience with Ubuntu shutting off would have been enough for most users to switch back to Windows or switch to Mac. But I'm a bit more persistent. I decided to try some of the later versions as they were released, 8.04, 8.10, and 10.04 most recently(on a different computer than the one that kept shutting off). I couldn't get any of those releases installed, or even run the demo mode. The Ubuntu logo would just sit on the screen with the little loading dots. I tried to install on three separate computers, all of them would do this. I googled and googled and nothing solved my problem. Then just a few days ago, I decided to give it another go with my 10.04 disc. And it installed fine. Keep in mind this is the same disc that I had tried to use before on several computers. What was the difference this time? I thought about it for a few days and can only pinpoint one thing. I was connected to the internet. All other times, I had my computers disconnected, and on the floor or workbench. That is crazy! Imagine if -that- had been someones first introduction to Linux. I'm not opposed to acknowledging Linux's merits, but wow, the idea that such a trivial thing could throw off an installation is really weird to me. It's little stuff like that here and there that keep people from taking it seriously.

I only had Windows 98 installed for 30 minutes, I quickly returned to Windows 95 and waited for Windows 2000.
In my opinion, Windows 98 and ME were the worst versions ever.

I ran 98 SE for a year after ME came out, upgraded to it once, quickly went back, and then did a fresh install, and ME was just too unstable. I did like the ME defragger, I downloaded it and used it in 98. I ran 98 Second Edition then, it was pretty fast and stable.
I used 2000 Professional for almost two years, fast and stable, used the same source code but had a firewall when you installed the service packs, and the defragger could be configured to run automatic. My change over to Linux came after a couple of guys got angry at me in a web forum and attacked my computer, and then emailed itself to all of my contacts, one of who was my daughter. She was hooked into a University Server and it hit them so hard it took them a week to get back up. Ubuntu came first, then the distro hop, and finally settled on Fedora 5, and then 6, and so on. I also ran PCLinuxOS a few times, it installs very easily, and loads drives for everything (even Nvidia) by default. Can be configured, with Drake Config, for ultra high security.

We Linux users get demonized a lot, but actually, we are not casual PC users, we are Hobbyists. We generally build our own systems, and like free software. I even belong to the Free Software Foundation.
We hobbyists rather enjoy installing and configuring our own operating system, changing it to suit us, customizing it to our personal taste. My desktop is beautiful, to me, and has a clock and rotating picture frame, weather applet, system Monitor, and I can alter anything. It takes me most of a day to set up and get Fedora running like I want it to, but after that is is the same every day. I have had my share of glitches, and have lost it all more than a few times. Linux is not infallible. But all I have to do is get out my software case and repair or reinstall Fedora, which I downloaded the iso torrent for free.

Things have changed since then, as Windows 2000 introduced many changes in the way Windows works.

A former Microsoft code writer told be a few years ago that the original Windows 95 source code is used in all Windows platforms all the way up to Windows Vista. I don't know about 7, it does use an extra partition for the loader, so at least part of it is different code. One reason I do not like Windows is a thing called "Windows Rot." "Windows Rot" is the name someone gave the process by which a Windows machine becomes progressively slower the longer you use it and the more software you install on it. Also, Windows, by default, saves all HTML pages, all Cookies, both HTML and Text, and all Temp and *temp* files, and has remote access by default on XP and above. Even the Windows Registry can be altered from a remote location. These things can be fixed, Internet Options is where to start, and Administrator Options in Control Panel.
Cheers

Originally posted by autowrench
I used 2000 Professional for almost two years, fast and stable, used the same source code but had a firewall when you installed the service packs, and the defragger could be configured to run automatic.

What do you mean by "used the same source code"?

We hobbyists rather enjoy installing and configuring our own operating system, changing it to suit us, customizing it to our personal taste.

The funny thing is that you can do much more than most people think in Windows, like switching from Explorer to any other program, we just need to know how.

I have had my share of glitches, and have lost it all more than a few times. Linux is not infallible. But all I have to do is get out my software case and repair or reinstall Fedora, which I downloaded the iso torrent for free.

I think the last time I had to reinstall Windows because of problems was when I went back to Windows 95 from my Windows 98 test.

A former Microsoft code writer told be a few years ago that the original Windows 95 source code is used in all Windows platforms all the way up to Windows Vista.

Since Windows 2000 that all desktop and server versions of Windows are based on the original Windows NT kernel that was based on the code developed jointly by Microsoft and IBM for OS/2. For Windows 2000 they added some of the "consumer side" features from Windows 95, but those were added, it was (and still is) based on Windows NT code.

"Windows Rot" is the name someone gave the process by which a Windows machine becomes progressively slower the longer you use it and the more software you install on it.

Some cleaning is usually enough, that's why I don't do what many people do, re-format and re-install Windows from time to time; once I install it it will only be removed by the installation of a new operating system, unless something bad happens (it never did).

Also, Windows, by default, saves all HTML pages, all Cookies, both HTML and Text, and all Temp and *temp* files, and has remote access by default on XP and above.

I have some people saying that, but I have never seen any proof that that is true.

Even the Windows Registry can be altered from a remote location. These things can be fixed, Internet Options is where to start, and Administrator Options in Control Panel.

Yes, and that is why I don't think of them as problems.

reply to post by autowrench


Why would Vista/7 have Windows 95 code still in it? There is no DOS compatibility built in, you'd have to use an emulator like DOSBox to run ancient DOS software/games.

When Windows NT releases on July 27, 1993, Microsoft meets an important milestone: the completion of a project begun in the late 1980s to build an advanced new operating system from scratch. "Windows NT represents nothing less than a fundamental change in the way that companies can address their business computing requirements," Bill Gates says at its release.

windows.microsoft.com...

Windows NT was built from the ground up and didn't use Windows 95/98 code. Windows XP and up is based on NT so your argument that modern Windows has that old of code in it doesn't add up. Windows 8 is also going to be different even a new filesystem will be gradually introduced look into ReFS (Resilient File System)

reply to post by MarkJS

-There is not a common development as far as I know, or even a GUI IDE available for
Linux (it's all done via command-line commands). Every distribution has it's own program
development and downloading process for users. This my friends, should not be.
Speaking of that, it breaks down even more as per definition. If each distro has a different
'download program' process, then this means that the programs used in each distro are incompatible
with other Linux distros. Again, this my friends, should not be. It's called Divide and Conquer,
unfortunately.

Learned something new! Found Eclipse. They have Windows and Linux versions to develop C/C++, Java, JavaScript, etc.. programs with. I wrote a couple of small test programs on Eclipse- for C/C++ and Java (admittedly on Windows). They compiled and ran fine. Eclipse is a nice IDE, which includes a debugger.

For the GUI interface, on Windows and Linux, a lot of people use wxWidgets.

wxWidgets (formerly wxWindows) is a widget toolkit and tools library for creating
graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for cross-platform applications. wxWidgets enables a program's
GUI code to compile and run on several computer platforms with minimal or no code changes. It
covers systems such as Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X (Carbon and Cocoa), iOS (Cocoa Touch),
Linux/Unix (X11, Motif, and GTK+), OpenVMS....

Would I use it to develop with? With the Windows and of course Linux versions of the GCC compiler, it makes whatever I write open source. Asking for donations for said programs, as opposed to selling them is not a problem. My hesitation is that, from what I understand- by me providing the source code as publicly available, anybody can change the it slightly, recompile it and sell it as well. I don't need this kind of competition... the kind that I would be indirectly creating myself.

There may be free but closed source options, but I don't know of any offhand for Windows... (sounds like MS Visual C++ for me then).

Originally posted by MarkJS
There may be free but closed source options, but I don't know of any offhand for Windows... (sounds like MS Visual C++ for me then).

Visual Studio 2010 (there's already a beta version of Visual Studio 2012) Express is free but closed source, although with some limitations when compared with the full version.