How can Linux beat Windows?
- Thread starter azmi
- Start date
Associate
ihave a win 7 machine which is mainly for games, but i do use it for web browseing etc.., not going to bother duel booting for no reason.
laptop and media centre run kubuntu and ubuntu, have since edgy eft, hardware problems at the start, required messing about with to get going. With every release upto the current jaunty the hardware support has increased.
I prefur the package manager, i personnly find it easier, than messing about in google for the more common tasks, such as ripping a dvd etc...
i only ever use the cli to paste something in from helpful types, you can do as much in gui as in windows in my experiance. (think i know more dos command than linux)
i would never consider forking out £70 for windows on all my computers, only for my gaming rig when ubuntu does for my needs. If i bought a computer with windows preinstalled, i wouldnt bother swopping for linux. The differance in day to day operations is not that differant.
laptop and media centre run kubuntu and ubuntu, have since edgy eft, hardware problems at the start, required messing about with to get going. With every release upto the current jaunty the hardware support has increased.
I prefur the package manager, i personnly find it easier, than messing about in google for the more common tasks, such as ripping a dvd etc...
i only ever use the cli to paste something in from helpful types, you can do as much in gui as in windows in my experiance. (think i know more dos command than linux)
i would never consider forking out £70 for windows on all my computers, only for my gaming rig when ubuntu does for my needs. If i bought a computer with windows preinstalled, i wouldnt bother swopping for linux. The differance in day to day operations is not that differant.
Soldato
The question should be, How can Windows beat Linux
I think it would need a re-write or something! Its the only OS lacking UNIX compatibility!
Apparently Windows 8 is going to be a complete rewrite... but i don't really trust Windows when they say complete.
Soldato
Lexmark
Nuff said !!
Nuff said !!
Soldato
So in other words they'll change the startup image.
I thought 7 was a complete rewrite.. they can't have made that much of a mess of 7. Hmm...
Soldato
I heard through the grapevine that they might be dropping the 'Windows' name altogether. I suppose it could only go so far...
Soldato
Hmm they might go for something more realistic like.. brick wall?
Associate
Vista was largely a rewrite - 7 is a smallish update in comparison
Soldato
Does a rewrite mean much if they don't abandon the big nasty Win32 API?
Soldato
Yes.
I was impressed with Linux(Mint,Kubuntu,Open Suse etc) had drivers for my eseential stuff ie wireless NIC,Sound,Video card etc..only thing holding Linux back IMHO is gaming side,now if it had gaming support like Windows it would be on a real winner, somebody is always asking me "how's Linux for gaming?".
For day to day general stuff including net use its fine,its matured a lot over the years.
Side note I do feel terminal is like old DOS days and really should be replaced with something more modern and easier(especially for noobs) package managers help in this area.
I would say if I did not game a lot I would be on Linux all the time and Vista/Win7 would not be on any of my PCs.
Last edited:
Soldato
Wine and Cegeda are a step in the right direction, but i agree with everything you've said.
Most of the time Windows and Linux distros like ubuntu are on an even footing for day-to-day tasks, problem is that you're more likely to run into a problem with something on linux, and when you do it's often an utter pig to sort out and you'll spend hours trawling through forums for answers.
Things you take for granted, like sleep mode or video playback can suddenly turn into massive headaches on certain machines.
I'm not saying that's linux's fault, since it's often down to poor driver support from manufacturers, but it's just the way it is.
I'm yet to find something really compelling about linux to make me use it over Vista or Win7 (apart from being free). Speed and stability wise, windows might even have the edge nowadays, I was always having apps lock up in Ubuntu (Ran it for the whole of last year on my laptop as the only OS)
Things you take for granted, like sleep mode or video playback can suddenly turn into massive headaches on certain machines.
I'm not saying that's linux's fault, since it's often down to poor driver support from manufacturers, but it's just the way it is.
I'm yet to find something really compelling about linux to make me use it over Vista or Win7 (apart from being free). Speed and stability wise, windows might even have the edge nowadays, I was always having apps lock up in Ubuntu (Ran it for the whole of last year on my laptop as the only OS)
Last edited:
Soldato
IMO the reasons why Linux isn't popular in the mainstream are:
* bad hardware support for newer hardware (audio, wireless networking etc.)- mainly the vendors' fault
* Bad (laggy) audio subsystem
* 'it's free so if you don't like it don't use it' attitude of many developers
* 'Linux is the answer to every IT problem' attitude of many Linux fanbois
* over reliance on command line (yes it is nice to be able to configure things on the command line but everything should have the option to use a GUI)
* lack of quality/features/usability of main apps (oo.org, GIMP etc.) are not a patch on commercial offerings
* lack of unity between applications
* cost savings are massively inflated, many biased cost comparisons cite examples such as saying on windows you will need to buy photoshop at £400 when on Linux you can use GIMP for free. What they fail to mention is that GIMP is available on Windows for free.
* Cost: the unwritten rule is that you MUST not charge for linux software, this stifles innovation
* difficulty in configuring the simplest of things: it took me a long time and many config files to get my forwards and back mouse buttons working in linux, in windows these work out the box.
Hamish
* bad hardware support for newer hardware (audio, wireless networking etc.)- mainly the vendors' fault
* Bad (laggy) audio subsystem
* 'it's free so if you don't like it don't use it' attitude of many developers
* 'Linux is the answer to every IT problem' attitude of many Linux fanbois
* over reliance on command line (yes it is nice to be able to configure things on the command line but everything should have the option to use a GUI)
* lack of quality/features/usability of main apps (oo.org, GIMP etc.) are not a patch on commercial offerings
* lack of unity between applications
* cost savings are massively inflated, many biased cost comparisons cite examples such as saying on windows you will need to buy photoshop at £400 when on Linux you can use GIMP for free. What they fail to mention is that GIMP is available on Windows for free.
* Cost: the unwritten rule is that you MUST not charge for linux software, this stifles innovation
* difficulty in configuring the simplest of things: it took me a long time and many config files to get my forwards and back mouse buttons working in linux, in windows these work out the box.
Hamish
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,479
The problem is that they are all coded by drug smoking, long haired tree-huggers who wouldn't agree to that in a million years.
In order for Linux to succeed, there needs to be only one distribution. Until then, it won't.
Soldato
Strange.
No one has a problem with someone charging for Linux, Red Hat charge staggering amounts for support as do Novell with SUSE's enterprise software. They know it's support that raking in the money not the OS itself.
The interesting point about your post and the thread with slylittlefox is that those offering negative views on Linux are almost exclusively those brought up on Windows or have no reason to use the more powerful functions that Linux offers. This is an OS for power users and no matter how Ubuntu wrap it up that will never change, you have to have a brain to use it.
Lots of opinions (and yours reflects this) use the "ah well we can just install some free software on our windows machine" which is entirely missing the point. One command in Linux can setup your machine as a webserver, another a research workstation another DNS server, another a media center, this just doesn't happen with windows.
Things are hard to configure in Windows just people seem to think "pointing and clicking" options in a Windows dialogue is different from entering flags on the command line :/ Why this is I have no idea.
IMHO using Windows is like riding a bike with stabilizers, it's keeping you from the fun / challenging bit - the rewarding bit. I for one want to fall off occasionally, get a few scraps and bruises as it teaches you about the bike and how to use/ handle it.
Well, it could be argued Ubuntu is the most popular distribution and provides a brand name - and this has been popular amongst the Linux community itself, it seems to be a case of marketing and other things.
There's no big money in Linux in terms of disc sales - the big money is in support. It might succeed, might not, we'll have to see how it goes and keep our fingers on the pulse!
