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

If Windows 8.0 didn't crash for you, we're not living in the same reality. You're in unreality.

On the release of 8.0, within a month M$ had the reaction of someone who went out into the cold with large amounts of posterior cleavage exposed. They rapidly rushed out 8.1, and forced everyone on 8.0 to use 8.1. Except 8.0 was too incapable in my case to take the update, and I was left high & dry.

On the "Just Works" point: What you say was true before PnP became so widespread on peripherals. Most stuff just works in Linux. There are a shrinking percentage of suppliers (e.g. Realtek, Broadcom) who refuse to support linux. Even so, drivers get written without them. A basic modicum of care in choosing your equipment avoids unsupported devices. But if you buy a cheap wifi dongle on ebay or Amazon, it's likely to have a Realtek chip. I don't often reward such laziness.

Bear in mind also that linux is now running nearly all SBCs, IoT devices, internet routers, internet servers, They have a lot more to support.

Originally Posted by rfoLqOrg Coming back (used it at work quite a bit) to Unix/Linux after about 20 years or so, as retiree, I see all these distributions and related new (for me) things like Haiku, I stumbled upon a discussion in a Haiku forum, where one poster vehemently trashed Haiku and also Linux. His main points of attack were (I put Linux and Haiku etc. in the same basket, as he did, and call it just Linux): 1) Windows/Apple 'just works out of the box', i.e all HW is properly detected, no need to hunt all over the net and forums (like this good one) 2) Windows/Apple more stable, 'never crashed' 3) Trust salaried professionals more than 'a bunch of volunteers'. My own experience: 1) True for the 'just works' part, not sure yet about the frequent need for 'hunting' in Linux, just started with some 'live' sessions. 2) Don't know yet (just starting with Linux again), but XP, Vista, 7, 8,1, 10 indeed never crashed on me, over decades. I still have machines running all of them just fine. 3) Double-edged. Because Windows and Apple are ultra-commercial I trust them less and less. Their intrusiveness and over-reach is getting unbearable, see Apple's over-expensive 'eco system' and Window's big brother attitude (starting in full with 8/10/11, 7 is fine) Resulting question: What can you, the Linux 'pros', tell someone like me, who starts to hate Windows (never used Apple much), but who also is still a bit nervous about the attack points listed above, because he on one hand wants an OS that 'just works' for every-day tasks, like Win 7, but on the other wants to enjoy the freedom (also financially, but less important) and comfortable real 'tech' smell of Linux, as opposed to the big brother and useless gimmicks smell of Windows and the secluded price rip-off of Apple.

Disclaimer: The only Apple machines I owned or used regularly were clones of the Apple-IIe. Other than that I never got into those little fruit machines.

#1 that "just works" joke is not funny. I have a dot-matrix printer I just trashed after 37 years. (can still get ink, but the ribbons!!!) I was always able to get it to work, but the original drivers were for DOS and I had to write my own for OS/2, Windows (Versions 3, 95, 98, NT, 2000, XP, 7, and 10), and Linux. Writing for any versions of Windows was insane! Writing for DOS and Linux was easy. I am not sure I ever got the OS/2 correct, but it mostly worked. NOTHING used it properly out of the box! (And don't even get me started on the drivers for my graphics tablet and sparkjet printers!) The "Just Works" thing works with hardware from vendors that support multiple software platforms, generalization, and sharing their technical driver specs so FOSS developers can make things work for everything else. IT is a joke for cutting edge hardware, hardware from siloed vendors that support only one or two OS options and keep their details secret, and most legacy hardware. (But there are more people making things "just work" for Linux and BSD than any other kind of OS!)

Now to modify that a bit: If you have well known and tested stuff that FOSS developers have had ANY access to it is more likely than not that it will be recognized and "just work" under Linux. More hardware will "just work" under Linux than any Microsoft OS or those little fruit machine! That is because we try to make things "just work" because we WANT them to even if there is NO COMMERCIAL ADVANTAGE! We could care less about the fact that it will make no money for anyone to make it work right, we just want to keep our nice toys and tools working! Microsoft, Apple, and most Vendors are not doing that. And it shows!

#2 DOS never crapped out for me, but it did for some other people. It took a hardware error or serious OS corruption (or malware) to take it down. Every version of Windows and Windows Server did die or panic at one point or another. All of them. Linux has only a couple of times (which is why I stopped using Ubuntu after the version 8 upgrade fiasco) but has been far more solid. I mean, most conservative Linux installs have been as solid and dependable as AIX from IBM or HP-UX: and that is SOLID! Windows has been the least dependable platform I have ever had to run. I do LIKE Windows for a few things, but calling it dependable is to ignore a significant body of data and other evidence.

#3 I trust salaried professionals IN ACADEMIA up to a point, and only within their field. Commercial professionals cannot be trusted if they have a commercial agenda. (See the Commercial agencies pushing SYSTEMD and the effects on the Canonical and Debian communities, tech, FSF, and associated projects!) Lacking a professional and academic objectivity I look for what they stake is and decide if I trust THAT. Lacking that detail I have to look to the results they produce and how it impacts the tech, the community, and freedom.

I trusted RedHat people as long as they depended upon and supported the FOSS and Linux communities, but not once they came under the control of IBM. I trust Richard Stallman, in his zone: he has laser point focus on the main values of GNU and FOSS and I trust that even when I disagree with specific arguments or decisions. I trust Linus Torvalds, in his zone. There are others I have seen or met (Often at RH summit conferences or various Linux events when I could attend) that I trust within their specific zone. Trust should be earned, not purchased.

Advice? If you want the latest and greatest software you have come to the right place. We have distributions exactly for that. If you want one that is pretty painless and stable Manjaro fits that bill well, but it is not the only one.
IF you want that rock solid stability, you came to the right place. Go with something very conservative based upon Debian Stable or diverged from Red Hat or SUSE: Rocky Linux perhaps. And to keep it stable never venture outside of the repositories for system software and avoid the experimental stuff.
Beyond that, be willing and ready to try new things. Back up your personal and critical data regularly to rotating media so you can reinstall and recover at need. No hardware is designed to work forever, so be ready for the day things fail. This also protects you from a distro going unstable, unsupported, or winging off into places you want NOT to follow: since you can just install something better, restore your data, and drive on happily without them.
And if you have issues or questions: LQ will still be here. ;-)

Originally Posted by business_kid linux is now running nearly all (...) internet routers, internet servers

Although this claim is made alarmingly often, it is simply untrue. Of course, many Internet services run on Linux - but by no means all of them, not even close.

Originally Posted by YesItsMe Although this claim is made alarmingly often, it is simply untrue. Of course, many Internet services run on Linux - but by no means all of them, not even close.

#1 he said NEARLY all, and yes it is very close. I would rate his comment "true" and your first sentence "false".
Arguably the BEST run Linux or Linux derivatives.

#2 Your second sentence starts off fine, "many internet services run on Linux - but by no means all" is true. It has been well over 50% for a bit so the second part of that sentence is false.

That said, generalizing these things is not productive. It is like the statement that "All supercomputers run Linux". It has a grain of truth, in that the top 100 run Linux. Off and on the top 300 have run Linux, but these things are ever changing targets and the truth or false value of the statement can change and change back in a single hour.

I had a discussion once where someone claimed that 70% of all web servers ran on Windows. I told them well over 50% ran Linux or Unix based operating systems. The claim they made would have been true only 18 months earlier, they were just a bit out of date. The world (and the Internet) never stands still!

Originally Posted by wpeckham #1 he said NEARLY all, and yes it is very close.

It is not.

Originally Posted by wpeckham Arguably the BEST run Linux or Linux derivatives.

WhatsApp and Netflix run FreeBSD. Just saying.
And none of my three servers run any Linux derivative either - and I actually doubt that I am the only one.

Originally Posted by wpeckham It has been well over 50% for a bit

Which is not even close to the same thing as "nearly all".

Originally Posted by YesItsMe And none of my three servers run any Linux derivative either - and I actually doubt that I am the only one.

I do not take what YOU run, or what I run, as significant in terms of the internet as a whole. I go by the reported server statistics. And now you seem to be splitting hairs to make argument. I do not care to argue, look it up for yourself.

Originally Posted by wpeckham I go by the reported server statistics. (...) look it up for yourself.

I did: 17.2% of all public servers run Windows.
https://w3techs.com/technologies/ove...erating_system

Even if we assume that much of the remaining 82.8% (which probably also have macOS, Solaris and *BSD servers) are Linux derivatives, we're very far from "NEARLY all".

I did: 17.2% of all public servers run Windows. https://w3techs.com/technologies/ove...erating_system

Yes... A friend of mine is in that business. The cheapskate low sized low spec networks in a small country can't afford a box for security or the maintenance of it, so they survive by hoping they're not noticed.l If my friend added a linux box (and maintenance) he wouldn't get the work. That's the VERY SMALL business market.

That page reports 83.1% of all web servers presenting as Unix (AIX, HP-UX, Linux, BSD) and I would call 83%+ nearly all.

"Nearly all" (= more than 4 of 5) servers run Unix or a Unix-like system. I never doubted that. However, as you finally noticed yourself, chances are that Linux comes down to 50% or so. Which is very far from "nearly all", which is what I said.

Imagine some Windows aficionados that hate Linux so much and want to replace them with Windows/Mac in a place like LHC , the zillions of pictures taken in a run are so staggering then these Win/Mac just go belly up.

Originally Posted by YesItsMe I did: 17.2% of all public servers run Windows. https://w3techs.com/technologies/ove...erating_system Even if we assume that much of the remaining 82.8% (which probably also have macOS, Solaris and *BSD servers) are Linux derivatives, we're very far from "NEARLY all".

I would also assume the catch all phrase "UNIX" refers to Linux, UNIX/POSIX (as in certified), 'BSDs, etc. It's not very specific.

Note: a website may use more than one operating system

I would also suggest that those websites running Windows are perhaps not directly facing the WAN. In simple terms, there is likely to be some other device, running who knows what, between the Windows box and the internet.

Also: https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-s...y/2019/06/27/7

To complicate your question further: the Linux usage on our cloud has surpassed Windows, as a by-product of that MSRC has started receiving security reports of issues with Linux code both from users and vendors. It's also the case that issues that are common for Windows and Linux (like those speculative hardware bugs) are shared with us via MSRC as well.

However...

We're now back to the infamous "fallacy of popularity".

One could argue that back in 1998 - 2001, Window 98 was the best OS and that IE6 the best browser as they were the most popular.

So I don't think it's enough to say that "Linux is x percent of servers and thus better". There has to be technical argumentation.

Where I see “Windows servers,” all the time, is: ”internal.” The enterprise has standardized on Microsoft, uses its “central sign-on” infrastructure everywhere, and uses Microsoft for its internal web sites. But they don’t use them for “public-facing” deployments. Nearly all the time, they use Linux-based “cloud” servers which then “back-door” to supporting API servers, which are invariably Microsoft for simplicity and compatibility. This keeps the “rough and tumble” activity off of their servers entirely.

Microsoft transitioned from being “a compiler company” to the main stream through their venture with IBM, and they paid extremely close attention to how IBM does things. And they have, in fact, crafted a tight, vertically-integrated software “stack” in many parallel areas. And that software – we must give the Devil his due – is extremely good and well-supported. “Yes, they earned it.”

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs [Microsoft] have, in fact, crafted a tight, vertically-integrated software “stack” in many parallel areas. And that software – we must give the Devil his due – is extremely good and well-supported. “Yes, they earned it.”

The late developer of CP/M would have disagreed, as would his wife.

Also the EEE and other insidious tactics used to undermine and destroy IBM's OS/2 and then "free software".

Regarding OS/2, it's a good idea to Dave Whittle's enlightening post here:

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-IBMs-O...t-at-that-time

You should also consider the "Halloween Documents" and United States vs Microsoft 2001 among other controversies, scandals and lawsuits relating to a long history of monopolistic and anti-competitive practices.

Almost everything Microsoft have come up with, has been stolen, cheated or acquired from others.

Funny thing about OS/2: “it’s still out there.” Not too long ago I encountered a Wells Fargo ATM that was crashed to a “Presentation Manager” screen.

While the “popular computer” momentum went a different way, and IBM eventually stopped pursuing it because it had become an unprofitable line of business for them, the OS/2 technologies and architecture didn’t go away. I can easily see why IBM and others would today select it for an ATM, or for teller terminals. (Full disclosure: yes, I worked with that one too. I’ve been around.)

And, why Microsoft might conclude that it was not a profitable line of business for them. As many of us well know, marriages don’t always work … and, if they aren’t working, both of you need to admit the change of plans and get out.