Ubuntu vs Windows
Friday, December 26th, 2008While i focus on web development in my articles this post is not related to web development in anyway, however i feel the need to post it here, after reading a bunch of articles comparing Windows and Ubuntu. For me it seemed that, authors writing this articles never used Ubuntu, they just installed it because manager told them to compare this two operating systems. Of course Ubuntu always loses big time, while i believe that Ubuntu (which btw means “humanity for everyone”) is a system simpler to use once you get past all the Windows nonsense that we are all used to.
This is why when you first install Ubuntu after years of using Windows it seems stupid that you have only write access to your /home/username directory and you cannot execute all programs by default, you need to input admin password each time you want to “do” something with the system. More over you do not have access to account with GUI which could do this. That may seem stupid and it actualy did for me as well, however this is the reason why there is NO need for: firewalls, anti spy-wares, anti viruses and so on. Besides similar system is already implemented in Windows Vista, so is it really stupid?
Next on the list is usually that “you need to do everything from the command line and edit config files to make changes in the system”. This could not be any further from the truth. Almost every program has an GUI now, almost everything can be configured with a mouse, but to be honest i prefer command line, why? Just look at Ubuntu forums how are problem solved? Someone ask a question and in response he gets a list of commands to execute from command line and that’s it. But … is this the case for Windows? Absolutely not, when you ask a question on Windows forum in response you get a list of screenshots and long explanation what to click.
Next, software installation, you won’t find an easier way to install software then on Ubuntu. You just need to launch package manager, do a search for a software that interests you. If it’s on the list (and if it’s high quality non commercial software then it usually is) then you just mark it for installation and package manager will handle download and installation.
By the way, did you ever had problems with movie codecs, when you were unable to watch movie because some codecs were missing? I did and guess what Ubuntu told me which codecs are missing and that it can download them for me right now. And again is that the case for Windows? Of course not, while Windows Media Player can do a search on the internet for codecs he never finds anything.
One thing that Ubuntu lacks are Video Cards drivers, or rather good drivers, i had to turn off all visual effects in GNOME because of bad GeForce drivers ubuntu consumed 100% of processor resources. On the other hand i never had problems with other hardware drivers everything works out of the box even on brand new notebook – well i actually had to update from Ubuntu 8.04 to Ubuntu 8.10 to get out-of-the-box support for my wi-fi card but that’s it. I also remember Windows installation that was fun … after installing system i had to install drivers for my hardware from CD’s.
So my point is that for an average user who uses computer to surf on the internet create some documents or spreadsheet, watch movie, listen to music or any other simple activity Ubuntu is far more easier to use then Windows. We believe that Windows is easier to use because we used it for such a long time, but once we get past our “windowsism” we can see how cool Ubuntu is.
tagged under:ABOUT THIS AUTHOR
39 Comments
subscribe comments feedLeave a Reply
Frank: sorry, I misidentified you as the author o laChild’s comment.
But I also disagree with your post
Suppose the fellow 3 cubes over, running Internet Explorer, has clicked on a hostile web site. His PC is now Own3d and is part of a botnet. Your desktop, with its open ports, has suddenly moved from a protected environment into a hostile one. If you are running Windows, your risk of getting added to the botnet are now much higher. And Linux network security isn’t perfect either.
When I started playing with firewalls in 1992 (anyone remember fwtk?) there was this concept of a “hard chocolate covering and a soft chewy inside”. When it became clear that really, really good firewalls could be breached by knocking over nodes on the inside using legitimate ports, this attitude evaporated. It was replaced by the concept of “defense in depth,”meaning you have multiple layers of protection. One or more edge layers, then the host/network interface, and finally the host security. (SELinux, apparmor and UAC are all attempts to improve host security.) Even so, the attacker continues to hold the advantage due to the asymmetric nature of defense vs offense in network security. The attacker has to find just one hole, the defender has to protect against multiple holes
So that host firewall on your organization’s Windows PCs is a really, really good idea. And it’s not so bad to have on your Linux desktop either.
I upgraded my home PC recently and decided to reinstall everything. That gave me an opportunity to test several Linux distributions. After Ubuntu, Mandriva, Debian, and Gentoo failed, I was back to Slackware.
I find the way Ubuntu failed enlightening. The installer did not see one of the disks and, consequently, it was impossible to install Ubuntu on the Linux partition I had on that disk.
This failure is obviously caused by the fundamental Ubuntu flaw – the attempt to do what cannot be done. It is impossible to provide the Windows style “ease of use” on Linux since Linux and its apps are not developed that way. One has to monitor each and every app they include into a distro and provide the “ease of use” level comparable in size with the application itself. Even if they succeed, many will call that “ease of use” crap.
Much hulabaloo is made over the fear of the commandline. While not an expert at the commandline, if the man and help pages don’t provide sufficient guidance, there’s always email, irc and Google searches. If a Google search provides the sought-after results, it may be a simple case of code copy-and-paste with little or no modifications to the pasted text.
I would disagree. My mother recently purchased a Dell system from here work. Actually she got a really good deal, $15 for everything and its a P4, 512 MB RAM, etc… Anyways I had my choice of installing either Windows 2000 (had a license from an old system of mine) or Ubuntu. I weighed my options. Spend an hour or two training my Mom on Ubuntu or let her run on Windows.
For certain people Windows is the best option. Would you give Ubuntu to a sales person? Your mother? Heck I’ve used Ubuntu and run Debian servers before and I still prefer to develop in Windows…. Just my 2 cents. Though I haven’t used Ubuntu since version 5 (still use Debian almost daily), it may be time to give it another shot.
“But the trouble really starts when the newbie wants to play a DVD. Oh hell. Mediabuntu, right? Where’s that documented?”
I am SOOO sick and tired of hearing the MS fan club shooting this BS excuse not to switch to Linux…. FOR THE RECORD, Windows CAN NOT PLAY A DVD BY DEFAULT! On a standard install (using the windows disk or recovery disk) the DVD codecs are not apart of the base install. They are usually included with the player that came with your drive. SO until you install all the bloated software that came with your DVD drive, you too can’t play DVD’s.
So in reality even though your DVD player manufacturer did not including Linux Drivers and codecs, installing the DVD codecs isn’t all that tricky thanks to the help of the wiki community.
The winner? Unix!
I also differ with the authors firewall opinion. A firewall should be placed between the internet, and your LAN. It’s an edge device. If your box is connected directly to your cable/dsl modem, then activating your kernel based firewall is recommended. Most SOHO style cable routers and have some form of firewall. Not all of them do proper SPI and limited storage means that you have make arrangements for logging. Open firmware (DDWRT as an example) is available for most routers that do not feature decent firewall facilities.
So to summarize:
A firewall is an edge device. If you don’t have one, get one. If you can’t get one, configure one locally. No need to enable the firewall on every PC on your LAN.
Frank
Frank, number one, I am not an MS fanboy. I’ve been a dedicated Linux user since kernel 0.8-something. I make my living designing systems on top of Linux server farms. More on hating Microsoft in a minute.
Number two, MS doesn’t include a DVD player with the base install – so what? The OEMs all add one. Every new PC (excluding servers) that has a DVD drive and comes preloaded with XP or Vista includes the capability of playing DVDs. The DVD gap is real – get over it. Having said that, there’s not a Linux PC is the world similarly equipped that I couldn’t get to play DVDs. But I’m on the extreme end of the power user spectrum.
The difficulty of licensing proprietary codecs for bundling with a free-as-in-freedom OS is not What I was getting at, though. The real problem is that integrating diverse apps and subsystems into a coherent whole is difficult in the extreme. Ubuntu comes closer to that goal than any Linux distro I’ve ever used, but they still fall short. At least Canonical is putting significant effort into solving that set of problems. They aren’t the only ones in the Linux communities that understand this, but most Linux developers I know don’t get that it’s a problem.
Finally, hating Microsoft (as I do, for a variety of crimes against technology dating back to the early days of the PC) will tend to blind you to things they do well. And denying that those strengths exist will work to MSs advantage, since that will lead to less focus on overcoming the gaps in desktop Linux.
The problem with all the “comparison” reviews is that they’re written by Windows users, who have never used anything BUT Windows, and don’t know any better than what they’re used to.
Take someone who’s never used a computer before. Get them TO INSTALL both systems. (Say Intrepid vs Vista) Then get them to perform a list of basic tasks on both systems. See which comes out on top.
Or take a seasoned Linux veteran, and get them to do the review to point out the stupidities and uselessness of Windows in comparison. Things like overwriting your MBR and NOT giving you the option to boot into your pre-existing OS. That’s been a basic function of all non-Windows boot managers for what, two decades? Probably far longer. How ’bout activations and “genuine advantage” … treating your paid customers like thieving pirates while the real pirates walk past your security unscathed. Stupid! Let’s not even START with the lack of virtual desktops on ANY version of Windows.
Results depend on perspective, and which one you’re coming from.
Minor correction to the correctors of the corrections: The firewall engine built into the Linux kernel is called netfilter. Iptables is a command-line interface to netfilter. Other linux “firewalls” tend to interact with netfilter via iptables.
While I think firewalls are useful, I think we have to be careful of the “voodoo” approach to computer security. “I’m running a firewall, so I’m more secure”, or “I installed antivirus, so I’m more secure” are ridiculous ways to think. A firewall is a tool for filtering network traffic, but it is only one tool. No amount of “security tools” will automatically make your computer secure. If you want to be secure, you need to understand the threat landscape for your OS and the applications/services you are running, and use the available tools to minimize your exposure to those threats. Yes, the “average user” probably won’t be doing that, but it’s reality nonetheless.
Layered security isn’t just about putting firewalls all over the place. It’s about addressing security from different angles and providing a diverse array of barriers against someone who wants to breach your security. For example, blocking ICMP and unnecessary TCP ports with a firewall, then using SELinux or AppArmor to control filesystem access of exposed services, and finally doing heuristic analysis of your logfiles to alert you to suspicious behavior.
Any way you slice it, security comes down to a battle of wits between you and the person who wants to compromise your system. If you look at it that way, you realize how inadequate a generic, off-the-shelf solution is.
“Just look at Ubuntu forums how are problem solved? Someone ask a question and in response he gets a list of commands to execute from command line and that’s it. But … is this the case for Windows? Absolutely not.”
First: last time I had to check a Windows forum to solve a problem…errr…never. Second: so, fiddling with the CLI should be the “right” way to solve things. According to you, right? oh, and there’s a big, big logic jump in there too: Ubuntu has a GUI…but YOU use the CLI…Windows doesn’t use the CLI and does everything through the GUI…Windows is wrong…all because you say so. No OS is right or wrong: you’re talking about a matter of personal preference….once upon a time there were happy COBOL programmers, you know? and computer language-wise, COBOL is a POS (personal opinion).
“when you ask a question on Windows forum in response you get a list of screenshots and long explanation what to click.”
Excuse me, how is this a bad thing? aren’t you being a little biased here? as far as I know getting a reply (a good one that is) in a forum is a good thing. And you failed to mention that on Linux forums most of the time you get CLI commands yes, but you have yet to upload the results of those commands in a reply, and sometimes using third-party services like pastebin.ca or something else, or generating, copying and pasting an ALSA logs url. Let’s define complexity, will you? what’s easy for you may not be easy for everyone.
“Next, software installation, you won’t find an easier way to install software then on Ubuntu.”
Yeah, the basic idea of software installation under most Linux distros sounds simple enough, and it works…for a while, until something breaks. Then you have to wade trough the forums to find a solution.
“By the way, did you ever had problems with movie codecs, when you were unable to watch movie because some codecs were missing?”
No, I never had any problems with video codecs under Windows; you either a) install K-Lite or any of the other thousand codec packs, or b) install VLC Player and voilá. Under my openSUSE 11.0 setup, the one-click codec install broke YaST, and it took me several days to fix it.
“One thing that Ubuntu lacks are Video Cards drivers, or rather good driver.”
On the other hand, video driver (nVidia) setup went completely flawless under openSUSE. The driver that all Linux distros truly, desperately need is a good sound driver (and BTW a good sound architecture…). Sound under any distro is just plain terrible.
“We believe that Windows is easier to use because we used it for such a long time, but once we get past our “windowsism” we can see how cool Ubuntu is.”
I agree to a certain extent with you, in that most people believe that Windows-isms are the way that interacting with a computer should be. However, Ubuntu (and ANY distro) is not without issues either. True, Windows has problems Linux does not have (yet), like viruses, malware and stuff; and yet, under my Windows XP setup I have got infected in a very, very long time. But, you have to play under XP rules to achieve that; by itself, XP (and other Windows versions) does little to prevent it.
Peace
OK, here’s the wide eyed Windows user trying out this lee-nux thing. Hey, the first hurdle’s not so bad – the installer mainly does the right thing (what the user wants) by leaving Windows on the machine and setting up dual boot. Except when it doesn’t.
Next comes the login screen. By default, you put in a username and a password. Windows defaults to just the password, applying it to the main user account. Somehow Microsoft has this idea that PCs are primarily used by just one user. A minor point, but that’s just for starters.
Everything is a little different. And yes, out tyro user is a bit timid about having to change work habits built up over years and years of the Microsoft monopoly. But the trouble really starts when the newbie wants to play a DVD. Oh hell. Mediabuntu, right? Where’s that documented? I actually found it through Google, but I hate cracking manuals open. So cool, our innocent victim user has to spend an hour or two, if not more, chasing down the codecs and libdvdcss so the movie player will work. What’s that? The audio doesn’t work even once the video does? Two different codecs, you ninny! At least 50% of the users have just scratched Ubuntu and Linux off their list. And Ubuntu actually does that a lot better than the average distro.
And it goes on like that. All of us are used to Googling and forum crawling to find answers to obscure questions about how this increasingly complex desktop Linux OS works. Windows users have to do that too, and are often at a disadvantage because the system is opaque and answers are harder to dig out. Except they aren’t harder to dig out. There are way more Windows users than Linux users, and their collective experience actually makes finding Windows solutions at least as easy as Linux ones. And you know, they don’t have to go looking as much as we do.
This is something that this dyed in the wool Microsoft hater and Unix/Linux engineer with 23 years experience finds hard to swallow: Microsoft does reliability better than Linux in a whole bunch of areas now. It wasn’t always that way. If you’ve been around long enough to remember Windows 3.1 and DOS, you know how high guano was piled on Microsoft’s program loaders. And yes, Vista is a terrible, paternalistic, bloated under performing pile of crap that is deservedly struggling in the marketplace. But it doesn’t crash very often – they’ve actually improved that a lot. And it plays DVDs out of the box. And the sound doesn’t get flaky like with pulseaudio. And of course, all the hardware under the sun works with Wintel – the power of the duopoly.
But, we have Freedom. Not a bad thing to have at all. But one of the things that freedom means is there are lots of solutions to the same problems. Distros, including Ubuntu, realize that focusing on just one package manager, or ogg player, or text editor or photo organizer etc, etc etc, means less support burden and less confusion for naive users. But if you take a scalpel and cut through the fertile but untidy Linux software ecosystem, you can only go so far. Microsoft suffers from this problem too, but to a lesser degree, since they have more control. Apple has a big advantage here since they control both the hardware and the software quite rigidly.The diversity is much greater in the Linux world, especially for basic functions like movie players. (If you get a little shock hearing a movie player described as a “basic function,” welcome to the average user’s perspective.) So freedom, essential to the success of Gnu/Linux, a key advantage we hold over other OSen and one of it’s finest features today and for the future, has this downside that enthusiasts rarely consider: integration of all that diversity is hard. And Microsoft does it better partly by being more paternalistic and less Free.
But we also have free with a lowercase “f”. One of the big attractions of Linux for ordinary computer users and big corporations alike is its low cost. With the premium Microsoft places on the OS and basic productivity apps, we have a big advantage right out of the gate. And it only increases as you move up the stack, assuming there’s an adequate free equivalent in Linux for a give proprietary package. But you know, if it isn’t easy and reliable, people’s perception of the value of free will go down.
I applaud Ubuntu for their herculean effort in trying to integrate best of breed apps into a semblance of a unified desktop environment. I hope they get around to fully supporting my cute little MSI Wind so I can dump the XP partition. I’m just a little disgruntled that advantages in reliability have eroded as desktop Linux has tried to ramp up to all the things Apple and Microsoft do for and to users.
Just to add to this comment and to help with a misconception:
——————–
A functional firewall should always be installed on a system which has access to the Internet, no matter what OS it is running.
——————–
So even behind a router, you need a “firewall” on the host. This is part of what is called layered security and is standard security practice.
“If it’s on the list (and if it’s high quality non commercial software then it usually is) then you just mark it for installation and package manager will handle download and installation.”
Not only that, new applications and everything they depend on are added to the Update Manager. Every day from then on you are notified of updates for all of your installed software. And if you uninstall one, it is removed from the update list. Very convenient.
This is my opinion : you don’t have to put ufw to “enable”. I haven’t use it since last may and there have been no problems at all. OK. You can put ufw to enable if you get better peace of mind but honestly – it’s not necessary.
Correct me if i’m wrong.
“Just look at Ubuntu forums how are problem solved? Someone ask a question and in response he gets a list of commands to execute in command line and that’s it. But … is this the case for Windows? Absolutely not, when you ask a question on Windows forum in response you get a list of screenshots and long explanation what to click.”
I agree with big AMEN. Propably the best thing in Ubuntu is the community. Most of the problems i’ve had (and there have’t been too many) are solved in Ubuntu forums. I’ve sometimes ask myself what i’ve done for Ubuntu community. Answer: not much but at least i’ve ask “silly” but many times so important questions. And once you have been helped by others you are ready to help new comers. I’ve helped some of my friends (now 7) to choose Ubuntu.
Since IBM buried Amdahl with FUD, the big fish in the computer industry have slathered thick coats of the stuff on the little fish. Preying on user confusion, the agents of proprietary software have, with some success, portrayed Open Source solutions, including Linux, as user interface throwbacks, more suited to a university lab than an office desktop.
Those familiar with the actual software in question are quick to see the lie, but Linux has essentially no advertising budget and a minuscule professional marketing force. The purveyors of FUD long ago found succor in the words of Josef Goebbels, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
The only way to combat lies is with truth. The public demonstration of the truth has successfully defeated the lies employed by the privileged to subjugate their victims for millennia. Yet, such demonstrations by the advocates of Open Source remain rare.
Install fests, letters to the editor, testimony before state legislatures and city councils – all are ways virtually any citizen can help advance the truth. How many who read this have done these things, however? And, while we tarry here, posting words to impress our peers, where languishes the truth? Fear not Microsoft, fear instead our own apathy and misdirection.
I have been an IT professional for 15 years, using Linux, Windows, UNIX, MVS, whatever. I decided to use Ubuntu on an old laptop and use it as my primary home machine. I am very disappointed in the quality. It constantly updates and those updates fix one thing and break another. Evolution as an email client has brutal quality. The network is up and down. I am going to stick with it, but even Vista has better quality.
roland
Firewall or not:
If you are behind a router there’s no need for a firewall.
I love this post so much . You pointed out all the right things between Window to Ubuntu.Thank you.
Mr. Lechiffre… Why should a firewall be installed if there aren’t any open ports? The purpose of a firewall is to block ports. Why block something that’s already, essentially, blocked?
I want to ask Mr. Lechiffre Frederic a question pertaining to his comment. What is the resoning that a Firewall must be installed? Exactly what is this based on concerning Ubuntu? Windows I understand. ( User of Windows, Apple & Linux )
I enjoyed the article, good reading.
What is the added value for a firewall active on a standard *ubuntu here?
… and there is a firewall installed by default in ubuntu, iptables, but by default, it doesn’t filter the traffic.
Just look at Ubuntu forums how are problem solved? Someone ask a question and in response he gets a list of commands to execute in command line and that’s it. But … is this the case for Windows? Absolutely not, when you ask a question on Windows forum in response you get a list of screenshots and long explanation what to click.
this is so true. All it takes is to copy paste, cannot be simpler than that, can it ? Anyway, it’s much simpler than explaining going through a gui interface which can be different according to version of the software.
And indeed Ubuntu has one installed.
I couldn’t agree more. The problem remains that people who are dedicated to Windows for years are reluctant to try anything “new”. I gave up trying to persuade people to try Ubuntu simply through rhetoric. I opted instead to “show them” at every opportunity. Once they see my laptop and/or desktop in operation, they are invariably “sold” so to speak. I took my laptop into the office one day to work on a special project (they didn’t have a spare computer – surprise
). Two people converted. I have 2 sons and they both are now avid Ubuntu/Debian users, as are their families. Several of their friends have also made the switch as a result of having experienced Ubuntu first hand instead of fruitless hour-long conversations leading to nowhere. And these are not geeks either, just average everyday users (well, except for my eldest son, who tends to grasp onto a new idea and run with it until he’s out of breath!).
So don’t try to convince everyone to try Ubuntu. Show them instead. Let them play with your system and experience a “real” computer. They’ll eventually sell themselves on the idea. Ubuntu has made huge strides in their offerings, and it just keeps getting better with each new release.
Actually allow me to correct the correction. A _Firewall_ is a concept or function, not a software package. The Linux kernel’s network functionality already includes the best form of firewall functionality at the kernel level; stateful packet inspection. Packets from network connections are scrutinised to determine where they come from, where they are going, and the type of packet it is. If nothing on this system or anything connected to this system requested these packets, or if they are malformed, they are removed from the input stream without any software running on the system ever seeing them…the same functionality that other operating systems require additional software to accomplish, and their software runs at user-level not kernel-level allowing for additional security holes.
This specific codebase that covers this is called IP-Tables so Greg is correct in that no additional firewall software is needed. In Ubuntu however, some of the protection of IP-Tables is not activated, I assume the reason for this is primarily that regular users enjoy a wealth of security from the way the system is constructed from the ground up for security and are only minimally concerned with fine-grained security.
However since 8.04(the latest Long Term Service release), a simple tool has been available to activate all the stealth/paranoia network security anyone could want. UFW, or GUFW for the graphical interface version. This is _not_ a firewall though, it is only an application providing a decent graphical interface to manipulate the configuration files that IP-Tables pays attention to. There are others of course, firestarter is one of the better known applications that provide the functionality to configure how IP-Tables works.
Also depending on the GNU/Linux distribution, all or most of the ports are shut off by default and I know of no GNU/Linux distribution that has phone-home reporting daemons running creating additional security problems, unlike the currently most popular proprietary desktop operating system.
MR LECHIFFRE FREDERIC,
Why would you need a firewall if you have no open ports? No open ports means that nothing can get in. Are you that worries about being DoSed?
Just to correct the correction:
A functional firewall should always be installed on a system which has access to the Internet, no matter what OS it is running.
Just to correct one point :
A firewall should allways be installed on a system which has access to the internet, no matter the OS it is running.
Further to the comment of the previous poster, ufw is installed by default (I think) in 8.10. Just google for gufw, which is the graphical front end for ufw, and the configuration for this firewall will be a piece of cake.
I dugg your article, It is nice and refreshing and I agree with your points that the OS isnt really given a fair go from the reviewers,
Thanks dv_cool_fuel
Ubuntu by default is pretty secure. Every modern Linux distribution comes with a firewall installed, it is part of the kernel, called iptables. By default iptables are setup for restrictive inbound traffic and permissive outbound traffic. A firewall is just another layer of security. Ubuntu users can install Firestarter for more control. With Linux a firewall is optional- especially for desktops!
THe great thing about Linux is Ubuntu isnt teh Linux.
Its one of many, many looks.
I think the KDE interface is one that WIndows converts seem to prefer (I think our LUG had it at 75% for KDE) while I prefer the lightweight XFCE which runs amazingly well on old hardware.
I’ve used Linux since Ubuntu 7.04 (not anymore because I’m not a fan of Gnome) and learned everything on my own/forums with a few trips to installfests for a few tweaks.
As for video codecs, its a moot point. Just use VLC for Linux and Windows. It will make you format agnostic.
The first thing I did when I got my sister a Dell Mini 9 w/ Ubuntu was get rid of the awful Totem Player and replace it with VLC (I also replaced Rhythmbox with the sublime Amarok and pidgin for Kopete which supports IM video).
I never think about codecs, formats or whether something will play on VLC.
I love Ubuntu because it’s free with the same functionality with proprietary OS. I prefer using Mac OS for design and multimedia and Windows for developing applications. I think we shouldn’t be tied to any OS
I love ubuntu because not only is it free, but it is just alot more powerful in my opinion. See my post on it Here
Good show, I haven’t seen a comment section with this atmosphere on an article like this before. As you say its usually M$ fanboys boasting they don’t have to compile their mouse drivers not people genuinely expressing their own OPINION on the matter.
I myself am a committed Ubuntu user. I know its flaws and weaknesses aswell as I know its advantages but it certainly does enough good for me to convert 100%. I believe if you are seriously considering the move then Ubuntu is very easy to adapt to, especially if like me windows has driven you round the bend one too many times. As a developer and all around techy it feels good to know that if I break it I can fix it, too optimistic with some desktop effects which damage the GUI can easily be reversed. One bad install on windows can ruin your registry and leave you paralysed. I’ve had that happen one too many times and I’m glad that with the help of the amazing open source community I can fix any little or big problem I encounter.
We can learn a lot from the experiences of the people above. It signifies the core of OS’s which most people don’t seem to understand. This is all about the final decision is all about opinion. I use linux because I developer LAMP web applications and software using python and C++. My partner uses Mac OS X because of its amazing music technology suites. My Dad has to use windows because he’s an accountant and all his accountancy software requires windows (needs to be XP though, vista is a no no). Each person has the right to choose the OS that meets their needs. Ubuntu and linux in general is raising the bar and meeting more and more peoples needs so in time its popularity will continue to increase. We can only hope that the rise of Linux and mac wakes M$ up to secure their system and realise how many millions of systems they put at risk by not concentrating on the serious issues like security instead of trying to make windows “prettier” than OS X.
I think open source is still better then windows
Mmm… Came here to read on WordPress, but this was a good laugh.
1. All OSes stink! not one has a do it all function in.
2. M$ vs Gnu vs Mac vs BSD vs DOS vs OS/2 vs the rest, it will probably go on into infinitum. My rule I use for consulting clients: M$ for the desktop, Gnu/Linux for the network, Mac for pictures and media (M$ is almost as good), BSD for the firewall/network appliance and Gnu/Linux/Unix (if the cash floats) for the enterprise.
3. How I’ve seen people debate the kernels you can use on the OSes as well. Linux like M$ kernel big, bad and monolithic aka that version and that version only if you get past the dependencies. XP sans Vista/Win7 modular and fast running something for WinNT/Win98 still works without breaking the OS. Vista M$ badest OS to date Millennium was better.
4. 3rd party firewalls under Windows are more user friendly and safer than built in Firewalls under Linux. Why, under Windows I can tell the firewall to deny any request for internet connectivity even if the program is IE and wants to use port 80. Linux, after 3 years and many forums I still cannot set the firewall to block any internet activity for Firefox (I use Opera under UNR), but still use it on the LAN for development testing on port 80.
5. Linux will always be a step behind M$ when it comes to user experience. M$ and 3rd party development still caters for the User and simplifying the experience and by experience GNU/Linux will always be for the Developers/geeks.
And while I’m typing this on UNR (for now) my 4 biggest pet peeves under GNu/Linux are:
1. The sound is and stays scrappy! ALSA and PluseAudio they will never work.
2. The amount of time and associated cost taken to maintain UNR over the last 8 months has been more than to maintain and FIX an XP install that I test various software packages on before taking it the rest of my company’s install base including plugging as many security holes as possible. I’m not even going into money/income/time lost due to time taken in fixing it.
3. Desktop FOSS and FOSS in general will always be running around in circles like a multi-headed dragon or headless chicken, because there lacks a common driving force and route for the vision, never mind the in-squabbles between different projects.
4. I’m still trying to figure out where the intelligence in GNU/Linux projects for user experience is, since I get more things done under M$ (even through clicking) than under Ubuntu or any other Distro for that matter. I still have to tell the OS most of the time what to do when XP and the rest figure out what I want to do.