BOOOO!!! HISS!!!! Windows rules, Linux drools!

Hehe :P

Oh my gosh, you had better be kidding. If not, that's one of the most misinformed things I've heard in who knows how long. Windows is unstable, closed source, overpriced (monopolistic), and evil. Linux is stable, open source, free, high quality, and awesome. Even Microsoft Hotmail was using a *nix system. Plain and simple, linux rules.

It was FreeBSD if ya wanna nitpick :)

I'd say *nix and windows are at a stalemate stability wise, but *nix (namely linux and bsd) win out on the open source aspect for me.

Was it FreeBSD? I couldn't quite remember. =-)

Windows has not crashed on me in months, and I use it on several different machines. I've used Linux before (I use it at school every day!) and I've found it to be unnecessarily cryptic and unuser-friendly with no software base and few benefits in return. Sure you can learn %s/regex/replacements/g in vi to search-and-replace some text, but how is that any better than clicking "tools"->"find and replace" in a menu?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for power-use; heck I've memorized more Windows shortcuts than I can count offhand. The problem I've always had with Linux is that it has essentially no useful software, or all the "free" versions are 100 times shittier and have no guarantee to work. It takes 3 days instead of 30 minutes to install and configure, doesn't even have hardware support (who here honestly wants to write their own @$(*&@#$ drivers???), and you're at the whim of free software advocates to provide you with bad alternative to what are nowadays essential utilities, such as a QUALITY web browser (read: not netscape/mozilla), a good word processor, etc. AbiWord and Gnumeric have a LONG way to go.

Saying crap like "Windows is evil" and "Linux is awesome" does not present a convincing argument.

I think it really comes down to what you want to do and how you want to do it. As you point out there is no advantage to having to type s/blah/bluh/g to replace in vi than choose fine and replace in a menu. If search and replace was the only feature vi had, that would be a conclusive argument. Even with that command under Linux you get a lot more power. You can do full regular expression search and replace which is infinitely better than simple match and replace. Suppose you wanted to change all strings of digits to a string of digits with a leading dollar sign. Search and replace would do you no good in windows, in vi you could do it. Sure, regular expressions are more complex, but calling them needlessly so is a strech. Search and replace is not the only feature vi has. For example, it is a modebased editor, and it has very modular commands. For example, you can skip words with w, but if you combine it with wd, it will delete a word. You can delete specific numbers of lines or
letters by combining the base letter with a number. While the casual or beginning user wouldn't use these, the experienced user finds these a godsend.

Saying that free software is always 100 times "shittier" is an outrageous strech. Case and point: LaTeX. This is a typesetting system used for mathematics and in the academic community. It is also free. There is absolutely nothing better that you can pay for. Ever try to enter equations using Microsoft Word. Using TeX is a hundred times faster and much more flexible. Plus you get professional quality output. The gcc compiler is considered a fairly good compiler. gnuplot is a considered a great graphing program.

As far as installing software, this may be an issue, but consider this: Windows installers often fail, and when they do you have little hope of finding the problems in less than three days. At least with Linux you have a prospect of solving conflicts and other problems without the accepted windows answer (reinstalling).

Hardware support really isn't an issue. I've been using Linux since 1993. I can tell you that if you think support is bad now, you really have no perspective. It is true that Windows supports more, but hey Windows 95/98 supports stuff that Windows 2000/NT doesn't support. That's not exactly a great situation either.

For a web browser, a Linux port of the very good Opera is in the works. For word processing you can use Star Office, ApplexWare, KOffice. Another option that I use is to write in TeX, which gives me better output in the end anyways. It also frees me from having to reformat endlessly and lets me do what I want to do--write.

> Saying crap like "Windows is evil" and "Linux
> is awesome" does not present a convincing
> argument.

I definitely agree with this statement. I also agree that Linux isn't for everyone and that you should choose what you believe works best for you. One of the problems people have going from Windows to Linux is that they approach Linux from a Windows perspective. Linux isn't better or worse, it is different. It has a completely different ethic to it, one which you need to be conscious of for it to work well. The same is true for Windows, but it isn't seen much, because people usually start with Windows, and that is their basis for comparison.

What is Linux's strong point (besides the fact that it's free)? Are there emulators written for Linux so that if I were to get Linux, my Windows games wouldn't be useless?

There are a lot of advantages to linux. Among other things, there are some great programs, as previously mentioned so well by aselle, and linux is very stable. If you want to run Windows programs, there is a great Windows emulator called WINE. You can also partition your Hard Drive and run Windows when you want or Linux when you want, if you still want access to Windows games.

I think that Linux is not so stable as usually told.

1. It is vulnerable to improper shutdowns. If CMOS RAM is changed boot messages will lead you to wrong way.

2. Some subsystems (as UMSDOS) often report errors (for example in Monkey Linux after second start of XFree86 and I must reboot system because it reports UMSDOS errors).

3. It is possible to hang up Linux, if you start some games that locked up keyboard (SBlasteroids) and your computer is not on network to shutdown it.

4. Number of possible instalation combinations is almost infinite. There is no warranty that something that works under Slackware 3.0 will work under RedHat 6.0 with Appache. Yes, you will tell me Do not use old
versions, but in case of Linux old versions of kernels
and distributions are still available and users of older machines will prefer them.

5. Rebooting is sometimes not enough. You must power off or you will get infinite loop of automatic rebooting.

6. General opinion about Linux stability is: It is more stable than Windows only because if you once successed to make thing working you do not touch anything. Linux users are more technically educated than Windows users and they will not overload machines with everything.

7. My conclusion: Some versions of Linux are more stable than Windows 95, but not when compared with Windows 98 (that has many autorecovery functions). The most stable OS that I used is Windows NT 4.0 with service pack 5. (It crashed once in three months of everyday use).

8. General opinion is also that Linux is smaller and faster than Windows. It is true if you use Linux machine as FTP or Web server. Linux will not use graphics in this case and will be faster. I use 486/100 with 8M RAM in my office for this purpose and works good, (except once mentioned with CMOS RAM). But, if you used Linux and Win95 in graphical modes, Win95 will be much faster, especially remarkable on 486/33. I successed to make Windows in graphic mode on one single floppy (using MINI.CAB). It is not possible with Linux (the smallest graphical Linux XDenu, requires two floppies and can be only graphical terminal).

----

I do not attack Linux here. I think it is best thing happened in 90's in computer world since evolvement of Internet. I only say that Linux advocates close eyes under Linux problems and overestimate problems of other operating systems.

A lot of the examples you refer to are anecdotal in origin, and are not true in the general case. Your points all don't apply to your thesis. For example, talking about size on point 8 does not support it. Also, you mention UMSDOS gives errors. For one thing, no on recommends using UMSDOS. It is a hack that isn't well supported. It should not be a basis from which we judge Linux. On point 1, that is true right now, but there is ReiserFS ( a journalling file system ) that you can install to alleviate this problem. AS far as changing the CMOS RAM, I haven't seen that happen, but I know if you change the motherboard on windows, it won't boot again, but on Linux it will. On point 3, you say it's possible to hang Linux. That is not hanging Linux, the console is just hung. A matter of semantics. Point 4 is not true. You can usually compile all the supporting libraries to make something work on an old version. Point 5 says rebooting isn't enough. This is not a common occurence, and in the case you've seen it is probably a hardware problem. On 7 you say stability of Windows 98 is greater than Linux. That is flat out wrong. Windows 98 can crash much more easily. I've only had Linux crash once or twice in my whole life, compared to Windows 98 daily and NT monthly. It isn't because I leave my configuration alone either, another one of your misnomers. In fact, Linux users tweak with their systems a whole lot.

Your last point about size and speed is true. Have a good day.

Actually, I just changed out the motherboard and a lot of other components on my computer (now a 700mHz PIII), and Windows booted up fine. Took about three reboots and Plug-and-Play rounds, but that was all. :)

Andy, did you (do you) ever debate in high school or perhaps in college? The way in which you answered Samir's arguments yelled out "I am a CX debater!" Anyway, sorry for the off-topic post, I was just impressed with Andy's CX-style argumentation.

I'm not sure why all these people are complaining about stability. I've only had one linux crash ever and it was caused by the abrubt removal of the drive cable connecting my dedicated swap drive to the controller.

1. It is vulnerable to improper shutdowns. If CMOS RAM is changed boot messages will lead you to wrong way.

I've never seen this on any linux box (486/DX'two'66, pentium133, pII/400, Duron/700). Sounds like the box has some bugs in the hardware.

2. Some subsystems (as UMSDOS) often report errors (for example in Monkey Linux after second start of XFree86 and I must reboot system because it reports UMSDOS errors).

I agree with this. After so many errors have been genereated by a certain module it should be quieted by the kernel. To stop this just kill klogd and maybe syslogd. Does anyone (other than developers) read the kernel logs?

3. It is possible to hang up Linux, if you start some games that locked up keyboard (SBlasteroids) and your computer is not on network to shutdown it.

Never had that problem. I've always been able to escape by hitting ctrl-alt-F1 (or any 'F' key you've got a virtual terminal running on). Just alt-[f-key] doesn't do it all the time.

4. I won't paste it in, you can read it for yourself.

If you don't want to mess with strange distros then don't buy them.

5. Rebooting is sometimes not enough. You must power off or you will get infinite loop of automatic rebooting.

hmm, interesting. This box sounds really screwed up to me.

6&7 concerning stability. I blue screened windows the first day I had it installed on my new duron/700. Linux on the other hand...well see my previous comment about the swap drive, and I don't leave stuff alone. Tweaking is addictive ;-).

8. I suppose if you try to run KDE on a 486 it will bring it to its knees and win95 will beat the linux box. Try running something designed for a 486 and you can see the difference. Of course, TWM and athena widgets are ugly, but that's what they were designed for. (BTW, I got a pentium motherboard and 133 MHz proc off eBay for $35, so theres not excuse not to ditch the 486).

----
I'm not attacking you here, just showing off another persons experience with linux.

> 1. It is vulnerable to improper shutdowns. If CMOS
> RAM is changed boot messages will lead you to wrong > way.

> I've never seen this on any linux box
> (486/DX'two'66, pentium133, pII/400, Duron/700).
> Sounds like the box has some bugs in the hardware.

ext2 is not a journaling file system, the same way that FAT/FAT32 are not. NT's NTFS is generally more stable than ext2 because it is journaling. You won't usually get errors if it's just down without unmounting the file system first, and if the data is that critical it should be backed up and the machine be put on a UPS, and there is ReiserFS, but this doesn't change the fact that ext2 can corrupt itself.

> 3. It is possible to hang up Linux, if you start
> some games that locked up keyboard (SBlasteroids)
> and your computer is not on network to shutdown it.
>
> Never had that problem. I've always been able to
> escape by hitting ctrl-alt-F1 (or any 'F' key you've
> got a virtual terminal running on). Just alt-[f-key]
> doesn't do it all the time.

This is a problem, but afaik not fixable due to x86 hardware. This is why it is nice to always have a second box handy (or a laptop) so you can SSH in and kill the offending process.

> 4. I won't paste it in, you can read it for
> yourself.
>
> If you don't want to mess with strange distros then
> don't buy them.

Exactly. Run Debian :)

> 8. I suppose if you try to run KDE on a 486 it will
> bring it to its knees and win95 will beat the linux
> box. Try running something designed for a 486 and
> you can see the difference. Of course, TWM and
> athena widgets are ugly, but that's what they were
> designed for. (BTW, I got a pentium motherboard and
> 133 MHz proc off eBay for $35, so theres not excuse
> not to ditch the 486).

You made the point that many Linux advocates will dodge. Use Linux for what it is designed for. The X windows system is very amazing how flexible it is, but it does not support nearly as much hardware as Windows does, and is not as user friendly or fast. You can't throw a newbie at Linux and expect him/her to be able to figure it out. Linux is nice for servers or for power users, but as a GUI desktop for regular users, it is not. I much prefer to run Windows 2000 over Linux on my desktop.

I don't want to get into a flame war here but I think that you have some stereotypes about Linux. Linux does not have to be cryptic and there are easy to use distributions of it like Mandrake. This does not take too long to install in addition to having GUIs if you want to use it like Windows. Also, there are good graphical word processors for it like Microsoft Word. Ever try StarOffice? There are lots of other great linux programs too.

Also, in regards to:
>>Saying crap like "Windows is evil" and "Linux is awesome" does not present a convincing argument.

Is this much different from you saying in the comment before that,
>>BOOOO!!! HISS!!!! Windows rules, Linux drools!

Amen, brother. I use SunOS in the physics department at my school and I have no idea what I'm doing half the time. Typing "lpr -P1212duplex" just doesn't appeal to me when all I have to do is hit [Ctrl] P. There isn't any good user-based software for Linux, either. StarOffice is more of a Ram hog than MS Office, Netscape is, well, Netscape, and if you want to ever play a quick game of solitaire, it'll usually take five commands to start it. I think Linux is great for a server, but nothing more.

"open sourceness" is a cause, not a symptom, (stable & overpriced are symptoms) as such it's not terribly important by itself. "evil" is a clearly biased opinion. (duh)

windows 9x series is extrememly inefficient with memory, completely insecure (any user/code can modify any file), and bug ridden. it's designed to be easy to use, not efficient and stable. (as a primary goal)

windows nt can run for several months without crashing/rebooting if it's used as a gateway/mail server with nothing else running. linux can run for years with practical use. (if set up properly)

anyways, that said, i run win95 with litestep (explorer sucks as a shell) cuz it's easy to set up & there's tons of software (easily) available. the firewall machine runs linux, tho.

I found this at this web site: http://www.linuxsucks.com/LinuxSucks.htm
Quote:"
I have used lots of OSes in the 5 years I've used computers, and I see the same thing crop up throughout all of them. People who are using one particular OS think they are better than the people using other OSes. This was happening way before linux surfaced. Take Mac OS. I've had 10 macs, and tons of PCs. To tell you the truth about using either, I don't care which one I use. Some people swear by the Mac OS and Steve Jobs and say the same things about Windows users that linux users say. Windows users say the same things about Mac OS or linux. To tell you the truth, I think not only linux sucks, but EVERY OS sucks. Every OS crashes. Every OS pisses you off at some point. Every OS can't do something that some other OS can do. Every OS has it's strong points. Every OS has it's bad points. EVERY OS SUCKS!!! I don't ever see my TI-82 crash. I don't see my Nintendo crash or tell me I have to install new drivers or libraries. Instead, I plug in a cartridge, turn it on, and KNOW it's going to work, instead of figuring out how I'm going to get it to where I can HOPE it's going to work. Like I said, I've ran lot's of OSes, and I think they are all a bunch of crap. I've not gotten things to run in linux. I've not gotten things to run in Windows. I've not gotten things to run in Mac OS. Does this make me an idiot? To some linux users, yes. They think that they're bad asses cause they are using an OS that some people don't understand. This sounds like immaturity to me. I mean when it comes down to it, all anyone's really doing on computers nowadays (home users, keep in mind) is browsing the internet, sending email, chatting, playing games, and other stupid crap like that. You can do that all on a dreamcast or PS2! Why the need for a computer, or in particular OS. Oh I forgot, Linux has free C++ compilers. WHO THE HELL CARES BUT NERDY PROGRAMMERS? Wanna be a nerd, and sit at your computer all day, and tell people that you know more about computers than them cause you use linux? Go ahead! No ones stopping you. You are just proving that linux will never evolve, because heck, look at the type of people using it! It's not because you all KNOW linux is better, but because you were TOLD it was better and THINK it is better. Like I said, and will say again and again, ALL OSes suck. Not just linux. So don't take a bad stance on my opinion. I HATE ALL OSes. I shouldn't have to be using a computer and have it crash on me. My palm pilot doesn't crash. My TV doesn't crash. My microwave doesn't crash. Wanna know why? BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THESE THINGS THOUGHT ABOUT THE USERS, NOT THEMSELVES. Every OS crashes. What does this mean? THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THEM CARE MORE ABOUT THEMSELVES THAN THE USER. Did anyone ever think of that? You guys wanna all think your cool, go back to watching your highly compressed crappy quality streaming movies over the internet. I'll go back to watching DirecTV, which by the way, doesn't crash on me. All I'm trying to say here people, is that until computers become just a single thing, and computer, not a mac or a linux or unix box, or a wintel machine, they will never truly flourish. They will never get anywhere. Intel will just keep kicking up the megahertz and amd will follow. And all the end users will argue about which is better. It's all just pointless. When will computers become just computers, without the tagging of megahertz and ram and hard drive space. When will they just do what they are supposed to do, and do it quickly? When will they become another appliance?"

It pretty much sums up the whole OS vs OS debate.

Quite a few problems with linuxsucks.com's arguments
(if you don't want to read all of this, because there are alot of examples, just skip to my conclusion):

First, "My NES doesn't crash." Bull. Any computer system that people can program for can and will crash. At times, games lock up because they have virtually un-noticeable glitches. For example, in a 2D game, you may be able to get your character to some off screen area that was not intended for you to venture into, resulting in a pointer being destroyed and then you game freezes up. Maybe the programmer's "wall" definitions were miscalculated. While this is not necessarily the fault of the NES, problems like this should be forseen; nothing, and more importantly, no one is perfect. Why doesn't my microwave crash? Because no one programs for it. The hardware and software all all designed and built by a single company. No one is going to install a new timer panel on their microwave. OSes must be able to support a wide wariety of hardware and software, otherwise, our computers will only have as many uses as a microwave.

Secondly, computers are now just computers. He talks about AMD vs Intel (and I might point out that AMD is no longer "following" Intel and hardly ever way), which boils down to brand name reliablity and superiority. Take microwaves, they offer different features: timers, power level adjustment, conviencene settings, and different volumes. You get a microwave with the most volume when you need to heat large food items. You get a computer with an awesome video card for gaming. You get a computer with a big hard drive when you plan to download many mp3's and movies. You buy a microwave that is intuitive to use when you want to be able to cook a meal while half asleep, or maybe when children will use it also. You buy a Mac when you want to be able to use your computer while half asleep (or totally asleep!). Point here is that feature disparities between computers are the same a feature disparities between other appliances: you get what you need.

Third, computer do what they are supposed to do and they do it faster every day. The thing is, computers do EVERYTHING. Your palm vII can do limited web browsing, email, planning and maybe some notes. Its task is much more focused than a PC. Lets see somebody set up a palm VII network. Let's see the palm VII print. Your palm needs the PC sometimes. What Mr.Linuxsucks.com doesn't realize is that a computer's tasks are so extremely varied that it can rarely do any of them with absolute perfection. The computer is far too complex to becomes just "another appliance" without severly limiting its capabilities. We would need a company to build a computer and design all software for it to run in perfect harmony with the system. The problem is that there can never be this kind of consistency with the market needs because:
1)Market needs are diverse, covering every market need would be impossible within the lifetime of any company, especially since,
2)The needs of the market change.
This individual has too narrow a perspective of the tasks that the good ol' computer performs.

Okay, there are more problems with the Linuxsucks.com quote, but I don't want to address any more of them.

*Conclusion*
1) PCs do everything. This means that an OS must support a wide variety of software configuations.
2) PCs cannot be simplified much more than they already are. It would take a giant collaboration on behalf of many companies to create a PC "appliance."
a)Peoples needs are far too diverse to be able to
meet with any success.
b)Even if the perfect OS was created with the perfect
software configuation that met everyone's needs was
created, what would happen to the PC industry? What
would happen to the software industry? Games?
c)What would happen when someone stumbles onto a new
networking technology? The entrie "perfect computer
system" would have to be re-designed and eveyone
who needed the new technology would be forced into
buying entirely new PCs and this wouldn't come
cheap.
3)I realize that linuxsucks.com is trying to say that
PC's should be like an appliance in that they shoud do what they need to do, and they should do it well. What he doesn't realize (or take into account because he does say that he is talking about the "typical home user") is the diversity of peoples needs, even the "typical home user." The makers of PC's must meet these needs and the only way to do that is with free configuration of hardware - Can you design your own microwave? No, you wouldnt need to, all they do is make food hot. - that will be managed by an OS, that will manage a myriad of applications.

Thanks for listening to my overly long and wordy post!
Zurmagus

Just one thing, the perfect OS does exsist.

The best way I know to put this is:
1: Linux - used for servers & very stable & capable desktops, not recommended for dummy users (66% + of pc users)

2: Unix - also great for servers, again not recommened for the feeble.

3: Mac - OK so your the guys who made Toy Story...yeah.

4: Novell - This is what work excellent for print servers, & file servers.

5: Windows NT - Well then, easy to maintain, just hit reboot 2 times a day & plan on at least 512mb of RAM. Oh, yeah, don't forget all the patches since you are more prone to hackers.

6: Windows 9x - O.K. here is most users best option for OS, these are the guys who don't know how to do something if it isn't A) Solitaire. B) A Shortcut on the Desktop. C) Pushing the Reset button cause your favorite 'Blue Screen' has appeared for the 200th time today. Oh & don't forget, you do have the best software to choose from, but what good is it when you spend more time rebooting, then working?

As you can see, there is a perfect OS, you just pick accordingly to what you need to meet your needs.
All opinions here are that of the sole "JrJinfinity", & yes I have used every single OS acknowledged in my post, along with a few others.

BTW I feel compelled to mention I can accomplish most everything I do on a computer in Linux more effectively, then I ever could in Windows, just a little learning curve then your good to go...

Yes, I actually do use most of these OS's on a regular basis, thanks to my cool job as an I.T. Technician, thank you all for reading & have a nice day!

-JrJinfinity
http://redrival.com/jrjinfinity

Nice opinions there. What I meant by "the perfect OS" was an OS that met ALL needs imaginable for every user. A _single_ OS that can do everything you mentioned in your post flawlessly. A very utopian thing this "perfect OS." And you have to conceed that such an OS does not exist.

Thanks for your comment though.

Most platforms have their advantages and disadvantage. Microsoft had the right idea about windows, but definitely should rewrite it! (I don't use Linux, so I don't know what it's like.)