May 23rd, 2003, 04:35 PM
Which Is Buggier - Windows or Linux?
I found this article about...
Which operating system -- Windows or Linux -- deserves the dubious title, "Most Prone to Bugs and Security Problems"?
...It must be Windows:
Every week brings a new announcement of yet another Microsoft security fix...
...It Might Be Linux:
To count the fixes and bugs for Red Hat Linux 7.2, go to the company's errata page and begin counting from November 2001...
...and although i know what the majority of you will say, it's always good to hear your opinions.
So... what do you think???
May 23rd, 2003, 04:49 PM
It's difficult to say conclusively because of the way some "bugs" are classified. Microsoft likes to call them "hot fixes" not bug fixes, so that makes quantifying them hard right from the start. Then you get into what bugs haven't been found and even more so, you have to look at each OS release because some releases seem to have many more bugs than others.
Tough question to answer Dark....
Our scars have the power to remind us that our past was real. -- Hannibal Lecter.
Talent is God given. Be humble. Fame is man-given. Be grateful. Conceit is self-given. Be careful. -- John Wooden
May 23rd, 2003, 05:18 PM
DR, every program of that magnitude will have bugs in it. It's a simple fact. The main goal of any programmer is to have stability. When you find a bug-free OS, or an OS that has "less" bugs, let me know. I will buy it the first chance I get.
May 23rd, 2003, 05:21 PM
I'd have to agree it's a diffacult answer to give. I think alittlebitnumb is right saying it's not about how many bugs persay, but how stable the OS is. Over long term, I would have to say Linux is a lot more stable if properly set up. However I am not really including the newest releases of windows as I have not played with them enough to take a stand on them one way or the other.
May 23rd, 2003, 05:53 PM
Indeed a though question, but nevertheless I'd say Windows.
I use linux and windows on a daily base, and I'd have to say windows has more *visible* bugs,
but then again it's those nasty viewable bugs, hickups and stability that count for most users, i think .
Just my 2 eurocents,
Eey, DRKR you got a new avatar, where did the jumpy A and o go ....
May 23rd, 2003, 05:55 PM
"When you find a bug-free OS, or an OS that has "less" bugs, let me know. I will buy it the first chance I get."
theres always OpenBSD
May 23rd, 2003, 06:37 PM
well i would have to say that linux and windows in regards to bugs can't really be compared. The core of linux and windows are totally different, because of the fact that most of linux's apps come from random people writing them, and windows all come from microsoft, and in comparision, there really arent that many "extensions" of applications to be real low level for windows, but when it comes to linux, think about that kernel, how many bug fixes does it have? Not very many. Windows is pretty much one chunk of code when you talk about bugs because of the fact that its basically all distributed at one install, whil'st linux there are new installs all the time. Bare linux is less buggy by far, in comparison to bare windows (bare meaning without extra low-level apps)
But in the linux world, bugs are like morning coffee, they are made, then you add whatever you wish for your own flavour, and usually it fixes you right up
May 24th, 2003, 01:52 AM
Well in my opion I think that windows is out to make money, and while we all know bill gates is out to make the most money ever period, he targets windows at everybody, so even though windows xp is a good thought out design and user friendly it has a damn LOT of bugs and I am new to linux but for me it has been sweet as peaches, damn hard to get into but because of all those people that have contributed to it, since its freeware no body is out to make money right? So people would more be thinking of the quality of the project, and showing off there talent in programming. So my thoughts are that windows has more bugs than linux. -
May 24th, 2003, 04:00 AM
It's not really that difficult to answer: windows is far easier to get running correctly, however nearly impossible to keep running indefinitely and will never run as smoothly as a properly configured Linux system, which will run forever in the hands of an experience user... (not me)
:q :q! :wq :w :w! :wq! :quit :quit! :help help helpquit quit quithelp :quitplease :quitnow :leave :**** ^X^C ^C ^D ^Z ^Q QUITDAMMIT ^[:wq GCS,M);d@;p;c++;l++;u ++ ;e+ ;m++(---) ;s+/+ ;n- ;h* ;f+(--) ;!g ;w+(-) ;t- ;r+(-) ;y+(**)
May 24th, 2003, 06:51 AM
I like Linux over Win98 (I refuse to invest any more $ into Microsoft).
If Linux has a bug, once it's recognized a patch is on the way. You know what the bug affects, you can decide whether it's an issue for your operation and if it's worth patching.
If Microsoft has a bug, once it's recognized AND THEN ONCE IT'S ACKNOWLEDGED by Microsoft, you have to decipher the cryptic info they put out, you load the patch not fully knowing how much extra stuff they are "fixing"
Nothing complex as an operating system is going to be bug free. How easy is it to patch and how forthcoming are the principals abou the operating system are my concerns.
"Somehow saying I told you so just doesn't cover it" Will Smith in I, Robot