Linux vs. Windows?

Question

Why do people always prefer one operating system over the other, both have good and bad points - why not just look at it from this point of view? I've seen numerous people slating MS simply because they own a manopoly, often the statements made about Windows are completely false. On the other hand I've seen people complain about linux.

Why don't people just accept that both operating systems have good and bad points and to live by one alone is pointless.

Apple macs on the other hand... don't get me started! A computer created for artists and children, just kidding ;-).

Just so people know - before you start recommending linux distros I'm already using them, I've got XP pro and ubuntu on my computers.

Before people bang on about Windows being amazingly insecure, I think I heard a Unix admin once say to me "all operating systems are the same, they're only as insecure as the administrator is". Also they use Windows on lots of ATM's now.

Answer 1

I don't know why people debate it either. I like Linux, and I don't mind Windows, even Vista. Admittedly, I mostly use Linux now, but that's because I can do most of what I want to do in either of them, and I wanted to learn how to use Linux, and so I did. But Windows has it's purpose, and I'll continue to use until a suitable replacement (like ReactOS) becomes available.

As for security; it doesn't take that much to secure Windows, really. Anybody who really cared could do it in less than five minutes. 98% of the security "improvements" of Linux over Windows are due to the fact that the average computer user doesn't know how to use it, or have any interest in learning. Here is an article that explains this a lot better than I ever could:

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=519246&rl=1

Answer 2

you're right the different OS's serve different purposes. Microsoft though I hate to admit it is a decent OS.

The problem isn't that MS's OS runs improperly it's that all software is being built toward a proprietary format that will change every 5 years or so. Also that hardware is geared toward working with MS rather than an open format. I would have no problem with MS if it adhered to open standards the problem is that if it did the company would go out of business as no one would be forced into needing windows anymore and allowing linux, apple, sun based OS's to run programs/hardware properly with no problems meaning that people would then to be free to choose the best software package available.

Microsoft has in the past refused to make it's software work with certain pieces of hardware if the companies made drivers for linux. Since this would be suicide for the company as 90% of its customers are windows customers it complies.

As a software engineer who's worked building both windows and open source tools the monopoly microsoft has is very frustrating, and strangles software innovation, not to mention the only person who gets rich off of it is microsoft.

Answer 3

i take advantage of a Mac and that i think of that's large. Key issues to be conscious with regard to the Mac: that's a steep studying curve coming from a domicile windows based gadget. it is form of greater high priced than your domicile windows gadget. The classes you record won't artwork natively on the mac. The Mac does allow you to place in domicile windows on it besides, so which you will run the domicile windows applications. there's a version of microsoft place of work (be conscious, excel etc...) for the Mac. stable tip: i might propose going into your interior of reach apple save and having a seem at a 21" iMac or a 15" MacBook professional (later is a computing device, former a pc). i don't be attentive to lots approximately Linux. i like my Mac (some might say a splash too lots) and that i might propose it to all of us. have you ever seen upgrading your computing gadget hardware tona swifter gadget and boosting the working equipment to domicile windows 7? must be a splash greater incredibly-priced. wish this permits!

Answer 4

As for why, that is up to each individual but as for security and overall reliability Linux which is based on Unix which originally was a large system OS is better. The basic Linux architecture is more like a mainframe and protects itself from viruses and malware. A real OS is built in layers where each layer protects the layer below is from attack. A secure OS has security built right into the kernal and uses hardware functions that are available to protect the system from attack. All secure OS's only allow specified and documented API's ( application program interfaces) and do not allow application programs to make direct calls to the OS or to branch directly into the OS. Users should not be able to access other users data

Bottom line is that Windows violates most of these basic rules, it does not implement the hardware storage protection functions that are available with the Intel chipset. Windows allows application programs(most of them Microsoft written) to use operating system functions without supervior over ride. Microsoft does not document all the available API's or secure them. Windows actually installs application within the OS allowing them to become the operating system with OS authority. meaning that a virus can call disk format on you and nothing you can do about it. One user can access other users data and no way to lock them out.

All that said there is a place for Windows. If you are looking for a standalone (not online) OS to play games then you can use the undocumented API's to speed up your applications using OS level code without going through the normal channels. For instance a real OS would not allow you to do direct disk or graphic reads or writes. Windows does.

When the NSA was looking for a secure OS for desktops and servers they went found it was not possible to secure windows without a total rewrite so they went to Linux and now you can have an SE Linux system that has the NSA security mods built right in.

Oh as for the new Apple OS 10, the kernal is Unix and most of the interfaces, the only thing they did was change the GUI to look like a Mac.

And yes I use both Linux and Windows and work on mainframes.

Answer 5

If you like to save money and aren't afraid of learning new things then linux is for you. In my experience I've found most windows users to be lazy, they like everything thing done for them, so they waste all their money on an inferior operating system. Linux is 100% free, comes with all the programs you need to be productive, as well as a huge list of free games, and better eye candy! Check out this video for a comparison of the Windows Vista Aero desktop and Ubuntu Linux running the Beryl desktop. Clearly you'll see how far superior the Beryl desktop is to Aero, blows it out of the preverbial water.

http://www.hollandpcservice.com/forum/showthread.php?t=122

I install this setup every week for someone after they watch that video, it sells itself.

Answer 6

Because people like to argue and play my d**k is bigger than yours.

I use several operating systems including, Windows Vista, Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows Server (Various versions), Linux, Solaris, and OpenBSD.

Each for its own purpose.

Windows is a better destop OS than the rest for compatibility and functionality reasons.

Linux is good for free servers.

Solaris is good for stability.

OpenBSD is good for security.

Answer 7

pros:linux is more secure and you can choose what version you like, and its free. cons: you will be considered a geek/nerd pros: you will blend in with everyone, more software is compatible cons: overpriced, a lot of viruses,malware, etc... for me: linux wins

Answer 8

Linux because it doesnt suck
but apples are better!
xp was alright..
BUT VISTA SUCKS!

Answer 9

Take a look at this article:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Windows-vs.-Linux.-Pros-and-Cons&id=686291

DM