ComputerBB

This post is intended to start a flame war, so just keep it coming.

Linux is far more stable than Windows XP. And XP users will ask how I can say this. Well, All XP users used to use Windows 9x. We all know how stable that was. It doesn't take a whole lot to appear stable to 9x users. It's true that Windows XP is a pretty stable operating system, but it is packed with memory leaks that require you to restart at least every few days. Veteran Linux users are used to running their computers for months without restarting. The Linux kernel has no memory leaks. Windows XP requires 256 MB of ram for tasks that would take 32 MB of ram in Linux. (See, you're already saving money before the liscensing is considered.) XP does not get blue screens, the BSOD was replaced by a somewhat friendlier dialog box that tells you that a program has crashed. So face it, yes XP crashes sometimes, it just doesn't take the whole system with it.

Though some of Linux's programs crash occasionally, never in Linux's recent history has there been issues of programs crashing the whole operating system. Also, the main applications (the kernel, X windows, KDE, and GNome) will not crash. Those pretty much make up a full competitor to Windows. Linux alone is merely a very sophisticated DOS with excellent hardware and software support and all of what you'd expect from a modern desktop operating system. X windows allows you to have windows on the screen, and KDE or GNome (whichever you choose), manages how those windows look and fell. So, my point is, Linux is far more customizable than Windows. In Windows XP, there are 4 themes out of the box (Windows Classic and the 3 XP themes which really are just 1 but I'm being nice). On the other hand, Linux has about 40 of them in GNome and KDE combined. Besides that are the infinite combinations of settings that are not even available in additional Windows "Power Tools."

Linux is more stable. Linux is more customizable. Linux is faster. Linux is safer (more secure). Not only is Linux far less attacked than Windows, but also its kernel is far more resilient to attacks. It is designed in a way to prevent viruses from infecting computers. Windows, on the other hand, requires anti-virus software to prevent computers from being infected almost immediately.

One of Linux's features is that it does not come with Internet Explorer, the most worthless web browser ever contrived. If this statement makes you think I'm out of my mind, go check out Firefox.

If anyone thinks that there is any reason at all to use Windows, say so now and I'll correct any misconceptions.

I am for linux

Linux is badass all around. i like knoppix for a home desktop computer, it has all the nice features you would need and or want on a desktop computer. and fedora for a server since alot of linux programs require RPM to install (fedora has), and because its linux of coursE!

etheral wrote:it has all the nice features you would need and or want on a desktop computer

Thanks to Wine.

Well, I have had no problems with Windows provided that I have all the software I need.

Congrats!

I have had nothing but problems with Linux OS's. Their main problem lies in compatibility, both hardware and software. Mandrake wont even boot on my main system, just stops at the login screen. I login and nothing happens, although iI can still type in the command lines. I hear better about freeBSD. But i cant download these distros, because i am 56k and it would take longer than what it would be worth.

One thing I dislike about linux is that networking to a windows network is a big hassle

Neo-Tebow2000 wrote:One thing I dislike about linux is that networking to a windows network is a big hassle

I agree there. Thats if you can ever get drivers for you NIC. I have some problems with my integrated NIC and some Distros of Linux.

Linux comes with drivers for everything except sometimes graphics cards. The problems you have mentioned here are just your own fault. Not all Linux installers will configure everything for you. In fact, few will. Linux is so flexible that for now it requires a bit of fine tooning to get it to work how you like it to.

Linux on the desktop is still a work in progress because of the sometimes difficult configuring. It's only hard to Linux newbs. Even people like me who have only been using it for a couple months do just fine.

Oh yeah, and networking Windows and Linux together is extremely easy.

If Linux is so easy to use, create a help session and let us see how easily you can teach it.
This is a free computer help forum.

You can teach us all the basics.

Also, I believe a person's choice on a OS has nothing to do with it's performance. It more has to do with what kind of person you are. I myself am a Windows person, thus I will always stay with Windows unless it dies or I can't afford it.

Other people are Mac people. They will always get Apple stuff.

And people like you are Linux people. You will always stay with Linux.

Of course you do have people that change a lot.

I myself find Windows to be a familiar, relaxing, no problems, easily userable environment. I have had experience with it and will continue to gain even more. The longer I use Windows, the more I learn about it.

Aggressor Prime wrote:If Linux is so easy to use, create a help session and let us see how easily you can teach it.
This is a free computer help forum.

You can teach us all the basics.

Also, I believe a person's choice on a OS has nothing to do with it's performance. It more has to do with what kind of person you are. I myself am a Windows person, thus I will always stay with Windows unless it dies or I can't afford it.

Other people are Mac people. They will always get Apple stuff.

And people like you are Linux people. You will always stay with Linux.

Of course you do have people that change a lot.

I myself find Windows to be a familiar, relaxing, no problems, easily userable environment. I have had experience with it and will continue to gain even more. The longer I use Windows, the more I learn about it.

I 100% disagree with your opinion. You seem to thing that people are made for either Windows, Linux, Mac OS, etc; and you are completely wrong.

Interestingly, Mac is about to die and Windows will begin to die shortly after Longhorn is released. It takes a while for an OS which as 95% of the desktop market to die, but NGSCB will pull it under.

Linux is free which is a huge advantage. For companies, there are additional costs to liscensing, but home users can get Linux for free, with the exception of minimal blank cd and internet connection charges. Yes, piraters can get Windows for free, but stealing from even evil organizations like Microsoft is morally wrong and should not be done.

If you're still learning things about Windows after several years of using it, it can be clearly concluded that you are a very slow learner. Windows is a boring OS that (in its newest version) has only 2 visual themes (Classic and XP Luna) and has no features behind the surface. I have found Mac OS X to be similarly boring.

Linux, on the other hand, comes out of the box with 2 desktop environments, each with about 10 themes each; 3 office suites (OpenOffice.org, KOffice, and GNome Office); roughly 50 games, some 3d and others 2d; various programming IDE's; a wealth of administrative tools; several web browsers; and multimedia applications. It is infinitely more customizable than Windows (which is literally true--it has endless possible configurations).

Linux is not for novice computers users such as Aggressor Prime, but it is the fastest growing operating system and its developers are working hardest among all operating system developers. Linux is growing quickly in both easy of use and feature set.

Bashing Linux ticks me off a lot, but bashing Linux by those who have never seriously tried Linux infuriates me.

Smartweb wrote:Linux comes with drivers for everything except sometimes graphics cards. The problems you have mentioned here are just your own fault. Not all Linux installers will configure everything for you. In fact, few will. Linux is so flexible that for now it requires a bit of fine tooning to get it to work how you like it to.

Linux on the desktop is still a work in progress because of the sometimes difficult configuring. It's only hard to Linux newbs. Even people like me who have only been using it for a couple months do just fine.

Oh yeah, and networking Windows and Linux together is extremely easy.

no it was not my fault, it said my NIC was not supported, same for my dial-p modem. Linux Mandrake not booting up after i login, is not my fault, as it works fine on my other system, i am sure its just a piece of hardware it doesnt like (probably my radeon as redhat will install fine and work, just mandrake wont load)

Try upgrading to Fedora

Until I have access to a faster connection, I can't. Downloading 600MB ISO's on 56k is to time consuming. I was going to try gentoo or debian.

Try Debian

Debian is very hard for inexperienced Linux users to install. Try asking someone you know who has a broadband connection to dl the iso's for you.

and make sure they burn it properly for you

Smartweb,exactly.


Linux is better!

I used to think this was true, but after I upgraded my system to use Redhat 9 (and the to Fedora) to handle a HP povilion 771n machine (with 2GB of ram and a 120GB of harddrive) a couple years ago, I changed my impression totally. The system hang very often without good reasons. I have to reboot the system from time to time mannually to ensure the system keep running properlly. When I use some statistical software that requires more than 1GB of ram, the system would reboot itself without any warning. I wonder why?



[quote="Smartweb"]This post is intended to start a flame war, so just keep it coming.

Linux is far more stable than Windows XP. And XP users will ask how I can say this. Well, All XP users used to use Windows 9x. We all know how stable that was. It doesn't take a whole lot to appear stable to 9x users. It's true that Windows XP is a pretty stable operating system, but it is packed with memory leaks that require you to restart at least every few days. Veteran Linux users are used to running their computers for months without restarting. The Linux kernel has no memory leaks. Windows XP requires 256 MB of ram for tasks that would take 32 MB of ram in Linux. (See, you're already saving money before the liscensing is considered.) XP does not get blue screens, the BSOD was replaced by a somewhat friendlier dialog box that tells you that a program has crashed. So face it, yes XP crashes sometimes, it just doesn't take the whole system with it.

Red Hat isn't the only Linux, and Red Hat 9 is several years old. Fedora 3 would be the current version of it.

Someone has posted above that Linux is free. Is this true? I haven't tried it. As a guide solicitation for novices who are deadheaded by the powerful regime of windows, in boredom, or frustration or just sheer lack of empathy, I have a few questions, not being confluent with recent hardware or software at all. Linux seems a good prospect to me and the question arises why should I use today software, windows, which has memory leaks and where nearly every user is used to crashing if not every day then a bit less frequently. After this is the appalling situation which is described above, that this OS takes huge amounts of RAM to run what should take much less amounts of RAM, and Linux reportedly doesn't have this tragic disposition. The Windows position is kind of the worst thing I can think about an operating environment. It doesn't induce trust or respect. I am always aware with Windows that it just works if it works, and you shouldn't expect it to keep working perfectly for very long, and if it does anyway, the attention is taken by a sheer tiredness and then loathing of this all pervasive yet hardly great and visually and operationally unattractive program. If I had the time and inclination I would learn DOS, though Linux seems a lot easier. My questions are: Does Linux cost,and how much for a singe very bottom to lower mid range price IBM comp. PC? Is it readily available for single machines like this? Also, if I were to make up an IBM comp. PC rather than buy a whole one, which is going to have Windows on it at that price, how much does Windows cost for a machine of the same vague specs as that of the first question? Home use, no special applications say 128 Mb RAM (also is this poss. anymore accessing the W.W.W. and multi-tasking normally?). Certainly no more than 256 Mb RAM. I'm asking what are the prices of the two pieces of software for full sinlge user non-LAN use. How long would it take someone without DOS knowledge, a complete programming novice and normal Windows user (someone who doesn't know nor want to know what many of the extra normal Windows functions are) to use Linux for normal Office prgrams, W.W.W. browsing and other normal use? Is there anything else needed to be known before going with Linux on a solo PC? Someone raised compatibility issues. In a nutshell what are these and how would a non-LAN user be affected? Finally, do the Linux preferrers above rate this OS better than the most recent and popular Mac OS which I prefer to Windows, and are there any specific benefits or preferences to this, if my dead head might also be better relieved by trying a Macintosh? Just reading your post, Prime Agressor, you say Linux is nearly free and also obtainable. Could you post how? Also are there other OS alternatives available or coming?

I use Fedora Core on a day to day basis with VMWare emulating an XP environment. I think this combination is very good yet I have never tried any games on it. Linux is good I think but there is still a while to go before the average user will consider changing over to it. Things that need to be changed first -the way that software is installed - either install via binaries, rpm packages or source, and make those the three options, and push to make it easy to do -cut down on some of the seemingly thousands of apps that do the same thing that are packaged with most linux distributions and put the best ones in there -make it possible for dial up modem users to connect to the net - yes I know that broadband is the way of the future but still many many people connect to the internet using the dial up method. -major games should be made to work on linux - lets face it, games are one of the driving factors behind the IT industry, and hardware would probably be much further behind today if it wasnt for this. If all these factors were addressed, I, and many people I know would switch today.

My system has an uptime that could shame most admins on the planet! Currently:- 591days : 8hours : 14mins All thanks to 4 Opterons, 16Gb ECC PC2700 and just under 2.2Tb of RAID storage across 8 hPnP hard disks. And its totally up to date and secure thanks to APT & a few home brewed scripts. M$ xp only dreams about uptimes like that! It almost seems that all M$ software has a coded half-life so to speak. i.e. The older the system the less crash resilient it becomes, whereas once linux has settled on the system the more stable it becomes. (provided the config files aren't butchered by a unexpirienced user.

PSYKLONUS wrote:Things that need to be changed first -the way that software is installed - either install via binaries, rpm packages or source, and make those the three options, and push to make it easy to do -cut down on some of the seemingly thousands of apps that do the same thing that are packaged with most linux distributions and put the best ones in there -make it possible for dial up modem users to connect to the net - yes I know that broadband is the way of the future but still many many people connect to the internet using the dial up method. -major games should be made to work on linux - lets face it, games are one of the driving factors behind the IT industry, and hardware would probably be much further behind today if it wasnt for this.

The new distribution Ubuntu Linux would probably work well for you. I'm currently using the latest version (5.10 aka Breezy Badger) and judging from your comlaints about Fedora it would be a good match for your tastes. The installation is a lot like Windows XP's, but it takes about half the time. It only takes up one cd, and there's not an excess of installed packages. When you log in for the first time, the desktop is a brown theme developed by Ubuntu (brown is its color) but you can change that very easily. Installing applications is a breeze. You go to the Applications menu and click Add Applications. Then you get into the Ubuntu version of Window's Add / Remove programs program, except in this one you can search for programs by category or by keywords and easily install whatever programs are not installed by the distribution by default. With a couple clicks, you can also enable the universe and multiverse repositories, which let you install just about any Linux program in existance without opening a web browser. You just tell it what program you want and it'll install at and any dependancies. Configuring Ubuntu is easier than most other Linux distributions, and in many ways is even easier than Windows. The website http://www.ubuntuguide.org has a massive amount of how-to's relating to setting up everything. The only thing I've had little luck with is video players, which represent a complicated situation because of legal issues. So that answers your complaints about software being hard to install and there being too much of it. Ubuntu's got those covered. As for dial up modems, Ubuntu has pretty good hardware support so I'd assume it could do that, but I don't have a dial up connection so I wouldn't know. Games--many older games will work flawlessly with wine, a program that lets you run Windows programs on Linux. If you install wine and run wine tools, you can get pretty good Windows compatability, and even install Interent Explorer 6, though I would only recommend that for web developers who need to test websites in IE because Firefox is a much better browser for day to day use for any operating system. Some newer games are released in Linux versions after the Windows release. Some games will work with wine. It all depends on the game.