Windows vs. Linux

[gore]

Originally posted here by reaper44
Obviously i dont just because my ME box doesnt get nailed with the sasser virii and Xp Cr** does obviously i have an inferior Product ha ha ha ha Qoute:As soon as you say you run WindowsME over XP... I refuse to believe anything you say regarding MS... because you obviously have no clue what you are doing.

Yea, why infect a machine with a worm that makes the machine reboot, when you have to do that by hand already, running Windows ME? Kind of kills the point of the worm infecting and making it reboot, doesn't it?

[gore]

Originally posted here by reaper44
Obviously i dont just because my ME box doesnt get nailed with the sasser virii and Xp Cr** does obviously i have an inferior Product ha ha ha ha Qoute:As soon as you say you run WindowsME over XP... I refuse to believe anything you say regarding MS... because you obviously have no clue what you are doing.

Yea, why infect a machine with a worm that makes the machine reboot, when you have to do that by hand already, running Windows ME? Kind of kills the point of the worm infecting and making it reboot, doesn't it?

[Sgear17]

The only thing i can say is LINUX ROCKS.... linux is far more useful than windows although we uses windows for gaming purpose only... linux is more secured than windows even if not so much of a user friendly but give you so much comfortability when your used to it... also give better graphics handling than window OS, if you go to www.netcraft.com and look for the OS of the company your searching you can see that microsoft company uses Linux OS as there primary OS .... heheheh

[Sgear17]

The only thing i can say is LINUX ROCKS.... linux is far more useful than windows although we uses windows for gaming purpose only... linux is more secured than windows even if not so much of a user friendly but give you so much comfortability when your used to it... also give better graphics handling than window OS, if you go to www.netcraft.com and look for the OS of the company your searching you can see that microsoft company uses Linux OS as there primary OS .... heheheh

[di0strb]

1. You have to spend money to teach the admins how to handle the new systems, backup and make the older backups of the network 100% rolloverable for linux.

2. You have to spend money training the employees on the differences so they can use the OS effectivley and efficiently, compared to the OS they already know how to use.

3. You have to spend money on code conversion, to get it Linux ready and usable for any company software.

I agree with pooh sun tzu but why argue.
With Linux with all its versions will keep us employed. The reason for this is because with Linux as a *nix OS we are literally taking 2 steps back Linux is playing catch-up to expensive and much better os like AIX and such but like I said Linux will keep us employed. And in time Linux will catch up. Ok before I get flamed about how great os Linux I will say that I am a devote Linux fan.
Linux for ever!! (Or until something even more fun shows up)

[di0strb]

1. You have to spend money to teach the admins how to handle the new systems, backup and make the older backups of the network 100% rolloverable for linux.

2. You have to spend money training the employees on the differences so they can use the OS effectivley and efficiently, compared to the OS they already know how to use.

3. You have to spend money on code conversion, to get it Linux ready and usable for any company software.

I agree with pooh sun tzu but why argue.
With Linux with all its versions will keep us employed. The reason for this is because with Linux as a *nix OS we are literally taking 2 steps back Linux is playing catch-up to expensive and much better os like AIX and such but like I said Linux will keep us employed. And in time Linux will catch up. Ok before I get flamed about how great os Linux I will say that I am a devote Linux fan.
Linux for ever!! (Or until something even more fun shows up)

[chsh]

Originally posted here by mjk
With that blatant statement out of the way, consider this quote as well:

Doesn't it seem to you like they're leaving out some important details? Such as the fact that Linux is FREE? And I think it's very biased to say that Windows can outperform Linux. The OS won't make it or break it; it's the machine's resources!

Umm, they aren't saying that Windows can outperform Linux, they are saying that multiple Win2K3 servers is better from a cost to performance standpoint than a single Linux mainframe.

Also, the default setup for Linux will be far more secure than the defaults for Windows. This will save more time in maintenance.

As the default setup on any given linux distribution varies from 0 services running to a holy mess of vulnerable services, I don't see how this statement means anything. Likewise, a default install of WinXP SP1 is far less remotely secure than Win3.11.

Windows machines need to be constantly updated. Linux machines still need updates, but not nearly as frequently.

It depends entirely on what other protections you have in place. Don't think that this is necessarily the case simply because some lazy admins don't opt to update apache when there is a vulnerability in mod_ssl and they don't happen to use ssl. If a similar thing happened with Win2K3 server, it would show up in your updates list at windowsupdate even if you don't have it enabled.

I think you are all kidding yourselves by saying that apps on linux are just as good as on Windows or MacOS. By and large that only applies to applications that are written as cross platform (ie: Mozilla). Some apps are pretty good, dev tools are decent, IRC clients are pretty good, CD burners are pretty good. Other apps don't even approach compatibility and functionality with their windows counterparts. Gimp is a great free editor, but it comes with few plugins, and feature-wise lacks much of what Photoshop has to offer. Cinelerra IME is kind of okay, but it's nowhere remotely close to Adobe Premiere. Some apps do most of what a person needs, but don't mistake 90% of a Windows app's functionality for 100%.

[chsh]

Originally posted here by mjk
With that blatant statement out of the way, consider this quote as well:

Doesn't it seem to you like they're leaving out some important details? Such as the fact that Linux is FREE? And I think it's very biased to say that Windows can outperform Linux. The OS won't make it or break it; it's the machine's resources!

Umm, they aren't saying that Windows can outperform Linux, they are saying that multiple Win2K3 servers is better from a cost to performance standpoint than a single Linux mainframe.

Also, the default setup for Linux will be far more secure than the defaults for Windows. This will save more time in maintenance.

As the default setup on any given linux distribution varies from 0 services running to a holy mess of vulnerable services, I don't see how this statement means anything. Likewise, a default install of WinXP SP1 is far less remotely secure than Win3.11.

Windows machines need to be constantly updated. Linux machines still need updates, but not nearly as frequently.

It depends entirely on what other protections you have in place. Don't think that this is necessarily the case simply because some lazy admins don't opt to update apache when there is a vulnerability in mod_ssl and they don't happen to use ssl. If a similar thing happened with Win2K3 server, it would show up in your updates list at windowsupdate even if you don't have it enabled.

I think you are all kidding yourselves by saying that apps on linux are just as good as on Windows or MacOS. By and large that only applies to applications that are written as cross platform (ie: Mozilla). Some apps are pretty good, dev tools are decent, IRC clients are pretty good, CD burners are pretty good. Other apps don't even approach compatibility and functionality with their windows counterparts. Gimp is a great free editor, but it comes with few plugins, and feature-wise lacks much of what Photoshop has to offer. Cinelerra IME is kind of okay, but it's nowhere remotely close to Adobe Premiere. Some apps do most of what a person needs, but don't mistake 90% of a Windows app's functionality for 100%.

[devpon]

quote:
Umm, they aren't saying that Windows can outperform Linux, they are saying that multiple Win2K3 servers is better from a cost to performance standpoint than a single Linux mainframe.

chsh, I agree with you on what they are comparing, but that is apples and oranges. How many mainframes are there running linux? How many mainframes are running Win2K3? They should be comparing multiple Win2K3 servers to multiple linux servers.

To each is own, doesn't matter to me.

[slarty]

When I started using Linux, it was no contest, Linux was better than Windows 3.11 in almost every respect. For the serious developer, the software in Win3 was incredibly lame, Windows 3.11 was very slow and crashed all the time. A lot of serious work was still done in DOS because windows was felt to be too much of an overhead and too unstable.

At the time, Linux was very new, but it was clear to anybody with half a brain that it beat Windows in just about every respect - its graphics felt smoother, its disc access was *orders of magnitude* faster, and not crashing was a boon too.

And because Windows 3.1 was a pain to install (You had to install DOS first, then **** around with win.ini and system.ini for ages, if you wanted any performance, you had to take the dodgy and convoluted step of enabling "32-bit file access"), Linux even seemed easy to install.

Unfortunately, when win95 was released, it fixed most of Windows' performance issues more or less overnight. Here was an OS which was easy to install, ran applications pretty fast (even windows 3.1 ones ran a lot better than they did before), and only crashed or needed rebooting a few times a day.

There are a lot of things in Linux which STILL haven't caught up with win95. Mostly UI and application-related.

---

Anyway, us Linux users were still happy that Linux was superior, because where you needed to reboot win95 a few times a day, we could run for weeks without a reboot, and no "system resources" leaks breaking our OS

But basically, Microsoft kept making Windows better in small increments (we can quietly forget about win98 and ME ), until Windows 2000 came out.

With win2k, most people can run it for a prolonged period without reboots. Performance is good on most machines, and its networking facilities are considerable.

Whether security is any good, is debatable. Certainly, it's clear that Microsoft have made a lot of progress. Unfortunately to jaded people like me, we see things like WinXP, as just some fancy decorations on an already heavily decorated win2k.

An unpatched windows server box on the internet, is likely to get cracked. So is an unpatched Linux box. so what's new? They both require patching.

Slarty