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

Microsoft VS Linux.
The winner is obvious,
But we have to admit, both sides have their advantages.

Originally Posted by abcde597 Microsoft VS Linux. The winner is obvious, But we have to admit, both sides have their advantages.

I totally agree. On one hand, Linux is stable, quick, secure and reliable. On the other hand, Windows has a cute puppy as the office assistant. That's a tough choice but as you say the winner is obvious - I go for the puppy

Originally Posted by abcde597 Microsoft VS Linux. The winner is obvious, But we have to admit, both sides have their advantages.

I agree even if to find adavantages with windows i must think for much time

Originally Posted by foodown One super cool thing about Windows: My trusty XP CD. Because Windows Vista, 7, and soon to be 8, are so undesirable, and therefore not adopted like Microsoft may have hoped, the Windows XP CD (Yes, it's a CD) that I bought in 2001 has lasted me for nearly 12 years now, and it still runs some new software. (It ran just about all of it up until this year.) I payed $120 for it, which makes the cost to me about $10/year. Strangely, Slackware has cost me more than this, since I buy a shirt with each new release. Sure, Slackware has been updated a little more than once per year in that time, and each release has been an improvement over the last, but cost is cost. So, in my case, Windows has been cheaper than Linux. It doesn't work out that way when you look at it in dollars per hour of use, or when you consider that being a Slackware user directly lead to a new career in UNIX systems engineering, thereby paying inestimable dividends .... Still. Even if it is because of the creating company's inability to make a good successor, I feel like I've really got my $120 worth from that XP Pro CD. The first computer that I installed it on was a Pentium MMX 233MHz ... The last non-virtual one was an Athlon XP 2.2GHz. Also, Windows is way crazy fast and has a very small memory footprint ... When you install version 3.11 along with DOS 5.0 on a Core i7 3.2GHz; Fastest, most lightweight OS I've ever run ... except for FreeBSD 3 on the Alpha architecture ... that was pretty damn fast.

What is 3.11 doing there anyway?......

Originally Posted by malekmustaq What is 3.11 doing there anyway?......

This is funny. I used to work for a computer company on computers. When windoze 3.1 came out, I quit and went to work for a magazine company. I got so sick of sitting there changing floppies, all 15 or so of them. When something didn't work, the fix was to reinstall the OS. That was the solution to all problems except broken hardware.

I don't even long for those old days.

Yes, there should be one generic API supported everywhere that is guaranteed to exsit on distribution, and this API should cover most of the common application needs (installation, desktops, settings, file associations, removable device locations, etc). This will make platform "solid".

I beg to disagree.
To have one generic API supported "everywhere" guarantees wide commercial playground, yes, and commerce is one basic aspect of civilization.
But to achieve a "solid" platform does not depend on "universality" of API but upon its inherent performance at attaining the end for which it is intended: Desktop? Server? Whatever?

It doesn't mean that every distro should use Qt or GTK. It means that distribution internals should provide support for this generic interface, no matter how it is implemented and no matter what libraries it uses internally. The end goal is to be able to use same application installer on every distribution.

Yes and No.

Yes, if the purpose of FOSS is commercialism.

No, because FOSS is fueled by Man's natural right to freedom.

In the world of Windows (without doors) you can find only walls. Microsoft MUST strive for uniformity in order keep the cost low as much as possible, and encourage market developers into their APIs to ensure a universal support --and since the APIs are generally consistent and uniform developers find it easier and manageable commercially too. But this aspect has nothing to do with the principal values venerated in the FOSS community. Redhat, Oracle, etc might rake in millions out of FOSS materials, yes, but their business has nothing to do with what FOSS is all about: you can sell vocabulary books for any purpose -crossword puzzle or a pocket dictionary- but NO MAN should be made to pay for, nor any government has power to issue patent for an english definition of a word; yet, though language convention is universal in certain respect we cannot avoid variance of dialects and accents --this is how it is to distros. In short, the aim of Microsoft for creating Windoze is Profit; while the aim of FOSS is pure Education and Human Right protection.

Originally Posted by dalek This is funny. I used to work for a computer company on computers. When windoze 3.1 came out, I quit and went to work for a magazine company. I got so sick of sitting there changing floppies, all 15 or so of them. When something didn't work, the fix was to reinstall the OS. That was the solution to all problems except broken hardware. I don't even long for those old days.

Dalek,
Yea the old days.
I was young then and I used to write business letters using C:\EDIT.COM of the msdos v.1.x, when windows 3 came ( C:\WIN.COM <Enter> ) I was on what looked like ncurses and when network neighborhood came win 3.11 I was already using dial up to access all connected faxes and boxes overnight. Playing with computers has always been a hobby but I regretted those days finding out the truth that the same objectives I can easily attain with Gnu/Linux AT NO COST FOR A BETTER SOFTWARE.

It should be possible to install same binary package on every distribution, or at least on every distirbution with same cpu architecture. Figuring out dependencies(if applies) should not require human attention, it should be automated. Making such installation package should not require living sacrifices. It should be easy. Program should not rely on #ifdefs internally (as it happens gnu autotools) Program should behave in same fashion on every distribution where it is installed. Program should have access to multimedia functions, input devices and 3d graphics. (think DirectX) Program should be able to support gui. It should not be necessary to include source code into installation package. It should be possible to implement binary installation package that still would work the same way. Program should have a way to auto-update itself. Program should have a way to check for existence of additional component and ask for its installation. Programming interface should be backwards-compatible. It should be possible to install and run the package 10 years later on top hardware. I.e. "compile once, use everywhere". Implement this and you'll get a superior platform suitable for commercial development. Or you could try to attract enough people to the platform, so a new market will appear and eventually software developers will be forced to support your platform, no matter how horrible your platform is.

It is an oremus of standards that not even a single existing commercial OS is able to attain.

This homework is due for the Redmond boys: they should have done their homework --commercialism is their job description. But such universalism (or say Roman Catholicism) of One And Only One Institution is completely out of place in the FOSS agenda, more so from the nature of Man, from the basis of the fact that though there is only one human nature there is not two equal human persons. The objective of commerce is to make as uniform as possible for easy control and domination; but this is not the idea of Gnu/Linux: --FOSS is to set us free from bondage.

Windows has a stable single fixed platform suitable for development. Attractive for commercial application. Linux is still do-it-yourself lego kit with way too many alternatives. As it was nicely said in this discussion, platform is fragmented. There are frequently several competing technologies designed to do the same thing (example: package management, desktops). Every component may or may not be present. As a result there is no single distro at which you could point and say "this is GNU/Linux". There is a linux kernel, and it is recognizable, but there is no strict set of utilities that should be present on the system (there is a set of command-line utilities, but aside from that...). It is too flexible to be attractive for commercial applications. You can grab linux and adjust it for a special one-time needs, but it is completely unsuitable as a platform for commercial applications. For example, I would use linux if I had to build a computer cluster for very specialized needs, or (say) an operating system for a robot (it will work as a construction kit), but I would avoid developing commercial applications for it at all cost - because there is no single standard "GNU/Linux platform", as a result, supporting the APP will be an expensive pain in the ***. On other hand, Windows doesn't work well as a construction kit, but as a target development platform it is extremely attractive - supporting it is fairly easy. There should be a clear distinction between "lego kit" distribution and "normal user" distribution. For a "normal user" distribution, to make Linux into a platform instead of construction kit, there is a need for standard that every distribution should support. There should be a set of functions that every distribution supports, or at least a single centralized way for applications to query which functionality is available. All desktops should support some kind of common programming interface, and there should be one standard way to install program. It needs some kind of committee that would oversee standards for entire platform. Unless something like that happens, in my opinion, as a platform linux will remain niche OS forever.

Excuse my bold. But I should say, the quoted thesis above is well argued. It is professionally prepared.

However, watch out the terms:

"Construction kit"
"Lego kit"

as against:

"normal user"

Those are misleading innuendos.

Call it construction kit or lego kit, but it runs fast, very stable and secure and does most computing jobs well and far better than M$. What else do you need to compare?

A computer user who cannot even complain at a nagging lousy PC is not a "normal user" but probably bordering as "abnormal user". Time is gold.

Yes run an M$ for 10 hours without crashing; but its total productive output of 10 hours can be equally attained by a Slackware in matter of 6-7 hours. I ran all versions of M$ but ran only few distros of gnu/linux, yet, all M$ editions (EXCEPT WIN 95) fared very slow than any of gnu/linux distros in the same machine --comparing even the heavy weights of Ubuntu and an un-tuned up huge.smp kernel of Slackware. Yet, the abnormal user flaunted by M$ preachers cannot see this difference.

i think the quoted bold in post behind this one is not 100% valid in that when you look at all of them closely they all have bugs of some sort even if its called "stable". some of those bugs are unknown waiting to be discovered. factor in the frequency of occurrence vs shear # of deployments and they are probably all about equal in terms of being "stable".

the cost factor is rather clear, you dont hire unix-app developers to develop to a windoze platform, and you dont hire win-app developers to develop to a unix platform. the costs of development is likely equal when you pair them correctly, so, that leaves us with performance, and i suspect unix will do the job faster than windoze.

i think the quoted bold in post behind this one is not 100% valid in that when you look at all of them closely they all have bugs of some sort even if its called "stable". some of those bugs are unknown waiting to be discovered.

Well, if update/upgrade is to firm up one version, we might say that all OS's, M$ and Gnulinux share equal vulnerability to bugs .

You may say that M$ OS is very poor and buggy, or that it is monotonous and expensive garbage, but still it is a product of human endeavor, a masterpiece of computing mediocrity with commercial ingenuity; and I too have made use of it for decades and made profit in my business that also employed machines running their system --I cannot be ungrateful to them, yet neither fail regret for having endulged too long when better option was given free. [COLOR="Silver"]

I've been on and off this site for more than a couple of years now and still am amazed at how many windoze fanboys still believe the dribble M$ hands out as a viable operating system. My problems with microslop have always been their greedy and dishonest practices. However they are not alone in the greed part of the equation: Mac is right up there as well. Ironic that I am putting Mac down as I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro. My wife is running the Linux based laptop here and we purchased a very old Macbook Pro for a reasonable price so I can play with it and install a Linux flavour when I feel up to learning more about Slackware, Redhat, Debian, or whatever.

I think I all comes down to what you do, what you need, and who can provide the best solution. I've been using linux as my main desktop for 12 years now, ran servers at home as well, had a lot of fun learning with it, it seems to do everything I need, and it's been flawless.

I use Windows because many softwares I need are easily to be installed in Windows.

Originally Posted by future_computer I use Windows because many softwares I need are easily to be installed in Windows.

Do you mean viruses?