Windows vs. Linux

Quote:

---

we see things like WinXP, as just some fancy decorations on an already heavily decorated win2k.

---

Just a side note on 2k and xp differences, XP impliments the BSD sockets for security and added speed for TCP/IP on the Kernel level, as well as HyperThreading for dual-CPU emulation for programs that support it on one CPU. Just a side note, like I said, and a brief bit of differences from the ocean of them.

Otherwise, your above post says it very matter of factly :) Both OSes can be just as good or as bad as one another depending upon who's hands it is in.

all os's have thier ups and downs... as for MS, there are by far more running than any other os so it makes sense to build a desructive code base to take them down... i'm quite sure that if gnu/linux was the leader (which will eventually happen) there would be just as much damaging code written for it as well... i do have to agree that ms has become a tryanny upon us, and like all other tyrannys they will fade as well... mac on the other hand is well, mac... another choice that has it's own buggs, probelms and kinda sux... gnu/linux is a better offering since the user can fine tune the os to the users needs...

Ok, I might just have to get out my ten foot beaver...

LINUX IS BETTER!!!! DEATH TO MICROSOFT!!!

LOL.

Now that I've said that, here goes. This is a debate that just doesn't have any clear winner. Linux has this, but Windows has that.... In the end it all comes down to personal opinion. If your like me and have a thing for command lines, run Linux. If you're more comfortable in Windows, run Windows. If you want the best of both worlds, run both. You have to look at the options that each system provides you with, and decide what fits your situation, your budget, and your personal taste best.

I'm going to sound like a windows user while I only use windows for games, but anyway... a few things I think off:

Like someone already said... running a machine also means the payment/training of admins. Next to that companies usually pay for support and everything and they also choose for enterprise editions of linux distros, for example redhat enterprise linux. I don't know the exact cost, but iirc you have to pay per machine per year a price, wich probably is lower then windows, you can't just forget just because home users can. Enterprise linux distro's aren't free at all.

Someone also already said something about default security so I'm not going to bitch about it.

In my experience with linux/windows I have alot more updates in linux then I have in windows. Those aren't all security patches, but the base packages for a linux system (network deamons dhcpcd, other **** like syslog and all kinds of core tools, lilo, kernel etc etc) got more updates/patches then my windows system got. That's a weak argument though, because it's quite user specific, but still...

Security and stability is a dead discussed thing... I'm just going to throw in an example, my windows 95 box ran a year without crashing or the need of a reboot. After that it caught fire.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by D0pp139an93r
In the end it all comes down to personal opinion.

---

I would disagree, I believe in the end it all comes down to:

1.) Dual Boot
2.) Multiple OS's separated by a KVM Switch
or
3.) A Desk full of PC's running your favorite OS for your task at hand.

or like I have (all of the above).

Quote:

---

After that it caught fire.

---

See, Windows is a fire hazard... ;)

From a business prospective, it's a 2 sided coin. In some cases I will tell you flat out, windows is oodles cheaper than Linux. On a large server farm delivering web pages to external users, Linux and Linux only will produce a profit, lowering substantially the cost of ownership. Since cost is a business compontent. Of course it's all dependent on personal bias if it's your own money. Example: If one has a small application that would require SQL licensing fees versus an open source object then it makes sense to use Linux, otherwise you can't get started do to high costs that must be passed to the customer. But on the other hand if one could cut dev time by 2 years and eat the cost of licensing fees then a couple million in programmer fees could balance out the cost plus the larger user base one might get. THat's only one point of view, you have deployment cost versus maintenance from an Operations side and more. In almost every scenario I have outside of applications dev, Windows is Cheaper.

ONLY if they already use Windows. Most applications I've came across would run in Linux fine. If the company is using UNIX right now, it's going to be easier and lower TCO to go with Linux or Free BSD. Now, if they come from Windows, then they may have a learning curve.

I was reading up on something where admins smuggle in Linux and BSD boxes, and just don't tell anyone that they did it because they are supposed to use Windows. I'll see if I can find it.

Quote:

---

gnu/linux is a better offering since the user can fine tune the os to the users needs...

---

Meet the registry editor, which is bascially a low level configuration GUI to control the kernel modules, program modules, and deep Windows system handling. Master that and resource editing and there are very few things that can not be edited in windows.

Each OS can get to the same end goal, but through different routes. Master the route used per OS, and then learn how to do the same thing on another OS :)

pooh sun tzu... very well said...