Because Shiny Things Are Fun - The New New Windows v Linux Thread

Originally Posted by smeezekitty Not exactly the same. Technically speaking Linux is a kernel rather than a complete operating system. Most other components are provided by the GNU project. Similarly, Android could be called Android/Linux since it uses the Linux kernel, but a (mostly) non-GNU system on top of it.

I am aware of all this. Linux is the kernel, GNU is the core OS and distribution is the tools and programs and etc. But the majority of people categorized all this with one word Linux. The same for Android. It's not just here, but everywhere.

Even RMS tried to correct the most frequently used term linux as GNU/linux. But, it had little effect.

I don't see it making much of a difference, real Linux users know without the GNU-how
we wouldn't be here... or get there! FTW___$

http://listverse.com/2012/12/27/top-...italism-sucks/

In the documentary "The Code", Linus Torvalds original choice name for linux was going to be called FREAX ( Free + X for UNIX), but Ari Lemmke recommended it to be called linux. And Torvalds agreed it was a better name.

what is ms windows? is it that fisher price toy os for noobs...

Windows - Runs programs.
Linux - Runs programs.

Pick the one that has the programs you want to use. Pretty simple.

Thanks for the link Android http://youtu.be/XMm0HsmOTFI + +

Check out this free one: http://shop.fsf.org/product/signed-f...reedom-signed/

I think the better question is: What does Windows 10 have that Linux users want?

Microsoft has sold a helluva lot of copies of Windows, and they did come by it honestly. MS-Windows is a fundamentally different system, and very much a "vertically-integrated" system sold by just one vendor, but it does have a lot of very powerful features ... especially when you need to manage thousands of far-flung machines in a corporate setting. It should have a nearly-bulletproof security model. Honestly, I think that the only thing that really works against it, but that works terribly against it, is ... Microsoft Corporation, itself.

One of their worst and most-persistent offenses is that they simply can't leave the user-interface / user-experience alone. And there is an unbelievably-bloated middle layer, a rat's nest of sometimes-conflicting rules and rules-sources, all wrapped up in an extremely-vulnerable "Registry." Microsoft simply does not listen to its customers to give those customers what they're actually asking for. Instead, it imposes upon those customers whatever sounded good to the Redmond marketing-department at the latest get-together. The Windows OS therefore doesn't stand a chance ... but it's really not its fault.

They also obviously still have a cozy-cozy relationship between "anti-virus software" and "security software" vendors, so they deliberately weaken ... or, in the consumer-edition case, turn off ... the system's security. There's also nothing remotely like Apple's "Time Machine."

Wow, sundialsvcs, I suppose your definition of "honestly" and mine (and perhaps the DOJs) differ, or perhaps "kinder, gentler" is a New Years Resolution.... and btw Happy New Year

One of their worst and most-persistent offenses is that they simply can't leave the user-interface / user-experience alone.

Much like google and many other larger software developers.

And there is an unbelievably-bloated middle layer, a rat's nest of sometimes-conflicting rules and rules-sources, all wrapped up in an extremely-vulnerable "Registry."

Having a centrally accessible registry that any program can read and write was a supremely horrible idea. And of course it picks up
bloat over time dragging system performance and especially boot time down to a crawl.

Microsoft simply does not listen to its customers to give those customers what they're actually asking for. Instead, it imposes upon those customers whatever sounded good to the Redmond marketing-department at the latest get-together. The Windows OS therefore doesn't stand a chance ... but it's really not its fault.

They pretty much did it in with 8. But as I said before, many large software devs do it. Even open source ones

But at least with OSS, you can fork it if it starts going down hill

I guess I do not really understand the issues. I have been using computers since long before Microsoft arrived, and use Linux at home and work and Windows at work. There is nothing I can do on Windows that I cannot also do on Linux with two exceptions: run/manage EXCHANGE and Active Directory. (The newest SAMBA may enable the later, I have not researched it yet.)

In terms of server stuff, everything I do on Windows Server that is not Microsoft Softwear specific can be done on Linux cheaper, faster, with greater reliability. Everything critical to Windows Desktop can be done better, faster, and cheaper on Linux desktops. The only real reason that we must run Windows at work is due to three factors: 1. Computer and Windows are synonymous to the executive suite, 2. Our clients run Windows servers and desktops and we need matching environments to properly support them, and 3. our IT land (my guys) are mostly provided by India where computer education overwhealmingly means Windows and Cisco ( everything else is a learning curve and lots of errors).

Anyone not constrained by such factors who chooses to pay $350 for Windows instead of $50 for Linux (assuming they even need support, without which Linux is $0) is obviously either ignorant or throwing money away. Ignorance is curable, we are all afflicted with it. Thowing money away becomes far less attractive once you understand the choices.

It will be interesting to see how Microsoft deals with the world as it continues the shift away from proprietary lock-in. They have made some interesing moves so far, but this is not really a world they are ready for or understand well.

Until Linux supports even half as much software, than I will have to continue to run Windows.
Software dev's fault and not Linux.

Originally Posted by smeezekitty Until Linux supports even half as much software, than I will have to continue to run Windows. Software dev's fault and not Linux.

Nonsense ... there is no "fault" here!

"Linux" today supports thousands of applications. (Yup, you can include every "app" for an Android phone ...) But, that's not the point. That's never "the point!"

"The operating system," regardless of which operating-system it is, is always subordinate to "what do you want to do with your computer?" The folks who build and sell software must choose which OS-platform(s) to support, according to the whims of the market(s) they are trying to "hit" ... including not only "the initial sale" but also "subsequent support." Even if they could, theoretically, "accommodate everyone," they most-certainly would not find it profitable, or even practical or even possible(!), to do so.

"So ... they don't."

And so, this leaves you, the consumer, with a necessary choice: if you want to run this-or-that application, then you must run it in whatever environment(s) this-or-that application technically requires. In the case of Windows, you can choose to buy a new piece of silicon that runs Windows, or you can implement a virtual-machine in which you run a (licensed ...) copy of Windows in which you run the application.

And there are lots of variations of that same choice: "I absolutely must have This App™, but it only runs on an iPhone ..." Do you buy another phone? Do you "switch?" Do you opt for a different App? The choice is: y-o-u-r-s.

More, and more capable, applications run on Linux than on any version of Windows. Many more Linux applications are free, Open Source and free, or free for personal use. You can decide to use (and pay for) Windows to run your favorite applciation, but do not say it is the only way to do that job and expect to be taken seriously. We know better.

I respect people who run Windows because they are constrained to, choose to for esthetic or busness reasons. I respect those who run Linux for any reasons, though I reserve the right to disrepect their reasons if they are invalid. I do not respect those who say that their personal choice is 'forced' on them, on their own machine, because of someone else, unless they are not free or not an adult.

FWIW: I run FreeDOS from time to time, but I do not expect it to compete with either Windows or Linux. I just LIKE it, and that is all the reason anyone really needs.

but do not say it is the only way to do that job and expect to be taken seriously. We know better.

Sorry but this isn't true. There is still a lot of more specific software that is Windows only.