been googling for while on that found lots of good information but I may have missed a few good sources
basically I'm looking for a why/why not switch compare and contrast type pieces from a mainly business prospective, but keeps the anti-windows/linux rhetoric tempered "too damn emotional at times".
its for a school paper and I figure that some on here might have read some interesting articles that I missed
That's a really funny discussion. I mean, everbody tries to convince the other, that his/her system is better, looks nicer, is faster or whatever.
Granted, Windows is better in some area. But that's not the point. I'm trying to convince people to use free software, because in most cases it's better, or simple because it's free (free as in freedom here)
The reason, why people should abandon Windows is, that it is not open. Microsoft never listens to their customers when they introduce new features. Tell me, what user demanded DRM? Who wanted patented ribbons?
It will never happen, that FOSS will introduce "political" features, such as DRM, because FOSS is driven by its users. Users decide, what features will be part of products.
As a windows user, i have to wait for years to get a new version. As an Ubuntu user, this only takes 6 months. I'm currently alpha testing Ubuntu 9.04 and i have to say, this will be an amazing release. The Alpha 4 is already very useable, and its pure fun to see the improvements that get into it every day.
If anybody wants to decide, which way to go, Windows or Linux (as a company standard, or so), Linux will be the better choice (IMHO)
Replacing one system with the other is a pain, because people get used to systems, even if they are bad 
Of course, they don't presuppose a conclusion at all. Nope. }:-@
Vardamir said:
You probably know theese already:
http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/
http://www.getgnulinux.org/
unfortunately that's exactly what I'm not lookin for, it's for an academic paper, don't think the UOL guys are interested in "M$oft evil" XD as an answer, thanks all the same
still though if any one can point me to some level headed articles I'll be thankful, I already gathered alot of stuff just interested in tapping all possible resources
I wonder if you have found these (I just googled em…)
http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/Economides_Katsamakas_Linux_vs._Windows.pdf
http://www.softwarelivre.citiap.gov.pt/Documentacao/Folder.2004-05-06.4081126526/linux_vs_windows_tco_comparison.pdf
mcbeth said:
unfortunately that's exactly what I'm not lookin for, it's for an academic paper, don't think the UOL guys are interested in "M$oft evil" XD as an answer, thanks all the same
You wanted to know why someone should switch to linux, those sites tell you why (in their opinion). If you want to know the other side, take a look at this: https://partner.microsoft.com/0013/40029171
Your job will be to examine those statements and write a conclusion. You won't find the paper you have to write somewhere on the web ;)
Here are two hands-on experience reports from people, that made the switch (from Windows to Linux and from Linux to Windows):
Windows to Linux
Linux to Windows
Those reports are only examples, found in a slashdot article, so this is not representative. After all, you have to find out what's important in your scenario.
Here you can read the about Munich's migration to GNU/Linux
Vardamir said:
mcbeth said:
unfortunately that's exactly what I'm not lookin for, it's for an academic paper, don't think the UOL guys are interested in "M$oft evil" XD as an answer, thanks all the same
You wanted to know why someone should switch to linux, those sites tell you why (in their opinion). If you want to know the other side, take a look at this: https://partner.microsoft.com/0013/40029171
Your job will be to examine those statements and write a conclusion. You won't find the paper you have to write somewhere on the web ;)
Here are two hands-on experience reports from people, that made the switch (from Windows to Linux and from Linux to Windows):
Windows to Linux
Linux to Windows
Those reports are only examples, found in a slashdot article, so this is not representative. After all, you have to find out what's important in your scenario.
Here you can read the about Munich's migration to GNU/Linux
yeah that more along he lines of what I am after, I am not trying to find my paper either just ,trying to find perspectives that are not too heavily skewed one way or the other.
I hate to say it, but between Windows, Mac, and Linux I still prefer to use Windows…I know, I feel tainted even saying it, but I've used all three now quite thoroughly and Windows stands out as the better system in my opinion. Linux is great and there are many things I prefer about it, but the Window Manager is buggy at best. The performance is severely lacking (such is one major reason why Apple wrote their own alternative) and though highly configurable it can be a big pain to deal with. Mac (not mentioned, but I figured I'd give the account all the same) has a wonderful graphical desktop with a lot of great functionality, but very soon you start to realize there's SO much it is missing from a features stand-point that in certain cases can make it almost unusable (i.e. lack of ability to define global font size changes on my 42" LCD TV so I can actually read the text on my Mac Mini). There are a ton of features that I have come to rely on that are built-in to Windows (and even Linux) that the Mac simply doesn't have. As a gamer Windows is the obvious choice to keep from having to deal with the performance and stability problems inherent to Wine or VMware.
I've been using Windows 7 on a test machine and I honestly think it's a pretty nice OS and extremely powerful. They still have a lot to do as far as performance tweaking, but I think it's all-in-all the best OS out there.
Linux is by far the best choice for console/server system or even for a media center (I have two Myth boxes set up with Ubuntu, and love them), but for a desktop environment I really think it leaves a lot to be desired.
I realize this may get me black-balled by many of you that think this was spouting of heresy, but I hate what I'm saying as much as any of you. :-p
darkfrog said:
I hate to say it, but between Windows, Mac, and Linux I still prefer to use Windows....I know, I feel tainted even saying it, but I've used all three now quite thoroughly and Windows stands out as the better system in my opinion. Linux is great and there are many things I prefer about it, but the Window Manager is buggy at best. The performance is severely lacking (such is one major reason why Apple wrote their own alternative) and though highly configurable it can be a big pain to deal with. Mac (not mentioned, but I figured I'd give the account all the same) has a wonderful graphical desktop with a lot of great functionality, but very soon you start to realize there's SO much it is missing from a features stand-point that in certain cases can make it almost unusable (i.e. lack of ability to define global font size changes on my 42" LCD TV so I can actually read the text on my Mac Mini). There are a ton of features that I have come to rely on that are built-in to Windows (and even Linux) that the Mac simply doesn't have. As a gamer Windows is the obvious choice to keep from having to deal with the performance and stability problems inherent to Wine or VMware.
I've been using Windows 7 on a test machine and I honestly think it's a pretty nice OS and extremely powerful. They still have a lot to do as far as performance tweaking, but I think it's all-in-all the best OS out there.
Linux is by far the best choice for console/server system or even for a media center (I have two Myth boxes set up with Ubuntu, and love them), but for a desktop environment I really think it leaves a lot to be desired.
I realize this may get me black-balled by many of you that think this was spouting of heresy, but I hate what I'm saying as much as any of you. :-p
I did try the live CDs for ubuntu and suse about a year or more ago, around ubuntu 7 and felt almost convinced to install it, got nervous and canned the idea, ubuntu felt more comfortable than Suse though................ maybe because I could see my windows drives with that and not suse :| dunno. but the meat of the matter, I guess is, beyond security matters, linux isn't really in touch with what the average computer user needs...............a fair degree of, for want of a better phrase, "idiot friendliness"..............in fact, there seem to be linux users out there that consider such accommodations as pandering to windows users :?, whatever happened to beating a man at his own game, I think there was a genuine opportunity with vista's failure that was lost.
any way there is always google, I get the feeling them fellas got somthin up thee sleeves :| :D
there seem to be linux users out there that consider such accommodations as pandering to windows users
So true. I always remember a linux newbie in vain trying to ask if there wasn't a simpler way to do some basic stuff(can't remember what he had asked but it was fairly trivial). Helpful linux users pointed out it took two short commands at the command prompt. What could be easier than that?
Didn't seem to be able to grasp the point that it's only quick and easy if you already know what to type in to that command prompt!
Does this thread turn out to be a Linux vs. Windows thread? Nice, then i have something to add
In general, i'd say Linux is superior in most use cases, not in all (gaming is one of that). Windows is just like the Nintendo Wii, at first it's nice, friendly and easy to use. But unfortunately that does last for a long time.
I've been a Windows user since ~1996 (since IBM destroyed OS/2, which was by far the best OS ever)
On the server side, there is no argument for a Windows installation, really! At work work we have Windows and Linux servers. The worst thing about Linux is, that it's easy to forget about it. Our Linux server is old and maybe needs an update, but i forgot to keep it up, so the update repositories have been discontinued already…
A Linux computer does not get slower over time, a Windows computer does.
Let's talk about hardware support. We have a dual Xeon server we wanted to upgrade to latest server OS from Microsoft, which is still Windows Server 2003. Here are the reason, why we chose to switch it to Linux:
- The server has no disk drive, but SATA harddrives, so Windows did not recognize a harddisk
- After finding a diskette and a diskette drive (what an adventure these days), we got it installed
- But the machine only used 3GB of its 6GB RAM
We installed Linux. Put in the openSUSE CD and it installed without any complaints and it used 6GB RAM (Intel 36 bit extension allowed this, but why doesn't Windows support this out of the box?)
About performance: My computer in the office is one of the oldest (Dual Core E6600). We have one Q9xxx with Vista 64, the person using this machine once stood in front of my computer, because i was showing him something, and he was impressed about the performance of my machine (it was Eclipse which impressed him so much). And i have compiz running, which definitly slows things a bit down, but its impressive eye-candy
Windows is easier to use than Linux? Come on, you are not telling the truth. I bougth a netbook (Acer Aspire One 150L) for my niece (13 years old) as a christmas present. She and her stepfather (40 years) are using it, and none of them has much computer experience. They just use it and have much fun. My sister, on the other hand, has a Windows computer. First she had Vista, but there is no graphics card driver for her 2 year old ATI card available. Then she switched back to XP, because most of her favorite games did not work with Vista (crashes and such). Now, i can't find a driver for the on board sound card anywhere on the web.
You can't do everything with a Linux box, and sometimes it can be frustrating, but overall, i would prefer Linux, because its easier to use, more stable, more compatible, more fun.
And not to forget: It's free, no digital restriction management, no constraint to a certain web browser, no "new" user interface technology like ribbons.
Vardamir said:
Does this thread turn out to be a Linux vs. Windows thread? Nice, then i have something to add ;)
In general, i'd say Linux is superior in most use cases, not in all (gaming is one of that). Windows is just like the Nintendo Wii, at first it's nice, friendly and easy to use. But unfortunately that does last for a long time.
I've been a Windows user since ~1996 (since IBM destroyed OS/2, which was by far the best OS ever)
On the server side, there is no argument for a Windows installation, really! At work work we have Windows and Linux servers. The worst thing about Linux is, that it's easy to forget about it. Our Linux server is old and maybe needs an update, but i forgot to keep it up, so the update repositories have been discontinued already...
A Linux computer does not get slower over time, a Windows computer does.
Let's talk about hardware support. We have a dual Xeon server we wanted to upgrade to latest server OS from Microsoft, which is still Windows Server 2003. Here are the reason, why we chose to switch it to Linux:
- The server has no disk drive, but SATA harddrives, so Windows did not recognize a harddisk
- After finding a diskette and a diskette drive (what an adventure these days), we got it installed
- But the machine only used 3GB of its 6GB RAM
We installed Linux. Put in the openSUSE CD and it installed without any complaints and it used 6GB RAM (Intel 36 bit extension allowed this, but why doesn't Windows support this out of the box?)
About performance: My computer in the office is one of the oldest (Dual Core E6600). We have one Q9xxx with Vista 64, the person using this machine once stood in front of my computer, because i was showing him something, and he was impressed about the performance of my machine (it was Eclipse which impressed him so much). And i have compiz running, which definitly slows things a bit down, but its impressive eye-candy :P
Windows is easier to use than Linux? Come on, you are not telling the truth. I bougth a netbook (Acer Aspire One 150L) for my niece (13 years old) as a christmas present. She and her stepfather (40 years) are using it, and none of them has much computer experience. They just use it and have much fun. My sister, on the other hand, has a Windows computer. First she had Vista, but there is no graphics card driver for her 2 year old ATI card available. Then she switched back to XP, because most of her favorite games did not work with Vista (crashes and such). Now, i can't find a driver for the on board sound card anywhere on the web.
You can't do everything with a Linux box, and sometimes it can be frustrating, but overall, i would prefer Linux, because its easier to use, more stable, more compatible, more fun.
And not to forget: It's free, no digital restriction management, no constraint to a certain web browser, no "new" user interface technology like ribbons.
u see thats the thing, u are speaking from the stand point of person thats technical proficient, what to u might be simple and no hassle is needless drudgery to others, windows are not my favorite company there licencing is crap, but they understood what was necessary to bring computering to everyone and not just to people that or are willing to become technically proficient, there are many good things about linux there is no doubting that, but u are viewing 'ease of use' through the eyes of someone who has the wherewithall to be comfortable with linux, not everyone can be like u for many varying reasons, windows has set a standard of usability that takes little less than common sense to deal with. The command console approach is simple not for everyone, thats all and again "ease of use" is subjective, and windows has, perhaps unfortunately, cornered the market on what that phrase means to many more people.. If linux was serious about encroaching on windows territory and less concerned about the flawed notion of "pandering to windows user" they would have discovered they need to outwindows windows.
why is it so unacceptable to 'hide" as much of the shell as possible from people that are either unwilling or unable to deal with it, or can't it be done, just curious.
As for the command prompt, imagine that in DOS times that was all there was, yet people managed to learn and use it, there is nothing about it that makes an average person unable to learn it. If the OS requires of you to know less, it doesn't mean that you should learn less.
As for Linux. I stopped using it when it took too much of my time. If the OS is customizable it doesn't mean i should spend all my time customizing it. Its just an OS, i should concentrate on my actual work, and not waste time making the OS better or more automated.
Linux makes for very stable servers, granted. We still have servers that i installed 5 years ago, and those are still working without maintenance. But it took several days to set up, and to remove all the unnecessary stuff which could cause problems. The new colleague maintaining our servers prefers windows, he may have more work in long term, but it takes only one day to set it up initially.
The thing i don't like in Microsoft is their half-baked solutions they came out over the years, seemingly working, but failing under load, or failing because of missing key feature or interoperability. I'm always suspicious when a customer chooses MS solutions, kinda can see in advance all the trouble they will go trough. But XP and Vista for OS (there is nothing wrong with Vista if you put it on a 64bit system with 4Gb RAM) are solid OS-es.
As for Mac. I consider having a Mac a consumer experience, not user experience. Since DTP and video editing is not tied to Mac any more, there is no "worth" in it.
vear said:
As for the command prompt, imagine that in DOS times that was all there was, yet people managed to learn and use it, there is nothing about it that makes an average person unable to learn it. If the OS requires of you to know less, it doesn't mean that you should learn less.
agreed, but my point is a precendence has already been set, and most are unwilling to go "back" :| unless they are met halfway, the ball has and is still in Linux court
Also, bear in mind there were a far fewer people, and fewer types of people using PCs routinely back when DOS was your only option (that's a long time ago now!).
The netbook i was talking about doesn't even offer a console. The people using it dont have any knowledge about what an OS is, and they just use it, to get their work done.
Nothing is perfect, wether Linux nor Windows, but in general, i'd say, if you use a desktop like GNOME or KDE, allmost all programs behave similar, look similiar. In Windows, each vendor comes with his own way of doing things. look alone at what Microsoft has to offer. There's the Office 2003 way of doing things, now they invented yet another (patented) way and want other to follow them now, incorporating that ribbon stuff in Windows 7.
Once they preferred MDI, now its a scheme using multiple windows per document, and every software vendor does it the way he likes. Thats confusing. Under GNOME/KDE, every software that i am using (except Eclipse ;)) feels just the same.
And what can you do with a naked Windows installation? Simply nothing. At least nothing useful
With a Linux distribution, all you need is already there. And if its not, go into your package manager and install it. The only things still missing in Linux are games (but here we are, creating an amazing game engine in java :D)
I'm amazed…I think this is probably the most cordial discussion of differences between Linux, Mac, and Windows I've ever seen.
I want to prefer Linux, I really do. It's just a practical decision from a person that uses his computer for so many different things Windows just has more to offer. Sadly, I also have to say that the desktop (only the desktop) is more stable on Windows than for Linux. I agree that Windows default install comes with cancer and slowly kills itself, but if, like me, you're willing to reformat every year or so and are happy doing registry tweaks and cleanup, the experience is much better on Windows overall.
Here is my list of things Linux would have to fix before I would be able to contentedly leave Windows behind:
- Wine support for the applications I want, or a viable Linux variation (although, for games this is the biggest problem)
- More performant desktop. This socket communication crap for the desktop seemed like a good idea at the time, but come on...
- More stable desktop....don't crash, pause, or start displaying garbage on the screen
- Better font appearance. Though this has gotten better recently, when I run Eclipse on Linux versus Windows there is a noticeable difference in font appearance. I've gone through all the tweak guides about how to get better fonts working on Linux, but still it doesn't stack up to being as good as Windows
I will again state though that Linux is my preferred OS for a non-desktop machine. CentOS rules all!
I agree with the Frog.
I really like Linux and i always try the new Suse releases, sometimes others distributions also.
But i still work in Windows most of the time.
What i think is funny, is that most People have very strong opinions on the choice of an OS.
I like them all for different reasons.
The webserver runs on Linux, my Desktop PC runs Windows, my notebook runs both, and at work we often work on a IBM AIX machine.
The question is not really Windows or Mac or Linux, the question is when to use what OS.
this was to write part of a paper, and I volunteered a personal opinion based on another personal opinion as an asside, wasn't really lookin for versus debate, just sort of get there.
10+ on what DF said