How can Linux beat Windows?

[NickK]

I'd disagree - I'd say it added predictability.

The very word I considered adding as an edit. It's simply that the predictability is required for commercial applications that are dependant.

In what way?

Virtually every human interface part of the GUI is roughly copied from windows or apple. Those companies spend to research, linux just copies.

I find that, although the system can do an operation, the attention is just to get the basic functionality working rather than smoothing the edges.

Who's fault is that? The opensource developers? You should be complaining that the techniques are protected by unfair IPR/patents - not complaining about GCC for not using them!!

If you've expended money on researching it then there's nothing wrong covering it with IPR/patent to get a return.

Open source does not research or innovate, it merely copies - badly.

 

[dangerstat]

Open source does not research or innovate, it merely copies - badly.

OH MY SWEET JESUS LORD PLEASE TELL YOU DIDN'T MEAN THAT?

 

[JonJ678]

Yeah, he did. Now quoted so no edit can remove.

Read through with interest turning to indifference. I'm interested by the few posts which say that linux is more difficult to do unusual things with, this has been exactly the opposite of my experience. To do anything on windows seems to require downloading someone elses program or writing your own, when linux seems to cope with a few lines of bash. As I cannot write programs to do things with windows, I appreciate the ease of the linux cli. Perhaps I'll go back to windows once I can actually write anything worth running in c.

However I'm pretty sure that linux is just going to get steadily better the more I learn. Ubuntu has so far worked out of the box with every system I've tried it on. Even using gnome, with a link to firefox and writer on the desktop the girlfriend and her mother are both quite capable of 'using the computer.' I'm 90% sure that if I'd told her mum that kubuntu was a new, fancier version of windows she'd have nodded and said she liked it.

 

[dangerstat]

Nice post JonJ678.

In reality Windows enjoys a large user base, not because it's any better or worse than Linux but merely because it's integration with other M$ products like Exchange and Office is excellent. Moreover it's the first experience most people get with computers nowadays. Linux is now easily the most advanced operating system on the planet, there can be little argument to that.

What windows users don't understand (or equally don't care about) is that the most cited reasons for one not using Linux is nothing to do with Linux at all. It's like buying a steering wheel for an Audi and then trying to fit to a F1 car, you wouldn't be surprised that it doesn't work - and rather than considering yourself stupid for even trying it in the first place, you blame the F1 car. Absolute stupidity of the highest order.

The biggest problem with Windows users, is they don't know what they don't know.

 

[zinc]

I think Linux is halfway to becoming a competitor with windows on the desktop. If it's to beat windows I think it needs:

- Games
- Flawless hardware support
- and many people would like a native photoshop

In terms of hardware support, as many have said, it is the manufacturers that don't develop the drivers for linux, it's not linux fault some hardware doesn't work. Developers then do a excellent job of creating drivers for these devices, without asking anything in return.

Personally I have never had one problem with hardware compatibility and I have the latest and most up to date hardware you can get at the minute! But I believe that it's because I stick with intel chipsets(X48 and X58, intel wifi and integrated graphics for laptops) creative sound cards and nvidia graphics cards. Intel and nvidia do a excellent job for linux drivers, and hardware compatibilty in the last few years has improved greatly.

I believe linux is top notch for free and you would be suprised at how it can suit almost anybody on the desktop. If all you need is to browse the internet, listen to music, watch movies, torrents, word precessing and office stuff; many distros have this by default. Although the normal user does not like change, that is the problem. Even if it's the simple concept of going to add/remove (which is centrailised and easy, like the appstore on the iPhone), instead of downloading a .exe from the internet, is hard for them.

That and its a bitch to install anything (which is ridiculous)- making it impossible for general public use.

Again no it is not hard to install applications, in ubuntu for example there is add and remove, and 90% of applications used by a normal user will not need to be installed by command line. As Hairybudda said the normal user will not need to add their own repo. I use repos myself to simply get the most up to date versions of applications (which may not be stable, but you take that risk) and also to test applications that are not released yet, e.g. google chrome.

For every person that has commented on how xyz doesn't work out the box, it simply comes down to lack of knowledge.

Exactly!

Why 'upgrade' from something that works for you, to something that causes more problems

Because many linux distros are faster to boot up. Its performance is excellent and its performance is the same the day I installed it. It does not get gradually slower and bloated and I don't spend hours updating it.

I gotta say though that I love learning how things work and tweaking, and by using linux this suits me great as I have the freedom to do anything, this suits many people. Once you spend time with it you see how powerful linux really is. At times windows just bores me to hell, as there's no challenge in it, but that's just me

Also just throwing this out there, could be a interesting read. 70% of the linux kernel is infact is being developed by paid developers at companies who see the value in linux and need it for their business:

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news...es-study-linux-development-statistics-who-wri

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/whowriteslinux.pdf

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-10315545-62.html

 

[PermaBanned]

Zinc, while i agree with your first two points i think that there's plenty of choice for Photoshop equivalents. The main one being GIMP, but i use Sumopaint and i know a lot of people that use paint.net.

 

[zinc]

Zinc, while i agree with your first two points i think that there's plenty of choice for Photoshop equivalents. The main one being GIMP, but i use Sumopaint and i know a lot of people that use paint.net.

Yea I used GIMP in work for a year as they were cheap and would not buy photoshop , although I find it does the job easily, it always takes me longer to do them than it would in photoshop.

I've never used sumopaint or paint.net I'll check them out.

 

[NickK]

OH MY SWEET JESUS LORD PLEASE TELL YOU DIDN'T MEAN THAT?

Yes I did and I stand by it.

Can linux be used by researchers as a cheap platform/OS to stretch their research budget further - yes.

Has linux driven, through research, the concept of the operating system itself forward - no.

There's a distinction between them and that is what I'm referring to.

 

[JonJ678]

Linux isn't used by researchers as a cost cutting measure. The entire physics community runs scientific linux, which is a red hat derivative. This is a consequence of the vast majority of them being competant programers who dislike wasting time fighting with windows. ssh and the like rather aid integration with other computers and the grid.

I'm pretty certain cern doesn't have budget contraints. I'm also certain the reason it doesn't run windows is that it would be an enormous handicap with no benefits. Not everyone is using their computer as a desktop.

If open source copies everything, and indeed copies it badly, where are they copying from? I assume you mean the linux kernel is reverse engineered from microsoft code? Or is the comment based purely on open office not precisely matching microsoft office?

Linux doesn't really do research. It's more a very, very large group of people playing with code in the interests of making computers do what they want them to. What do you have in mind by "concept of the operating system?" Clarify your points please



My personal belief is that people like windows because they've spent so long fighting with it to make it behave that they can't remember the fight. It comes on the computer, so you deal with it. Ten years later, you don't get what the fuss is about. Windows makes sense afterall. Linux is this nasty irrational thing which refuses to execute commands if you're not root, and takes it on absolute faith that you know what you're doing if you are root. However if you had spent a decade with unix, you would find it as familiar a place as you find windows. It takes effort to change, and to learn a new system.

Even as a desktop OS I now prefer linux, though I was forced into it by the eee pc 701 and xandros. I do not like xandros. Had I never bought the eee, I'd be in the crowd saying windows is good enough. I am glad to have been educated further.

rather than considering yourself stupid for even trying it in the first place, you blame the F1 car.

I see you have been arguing this point for longer than I have. A somewhat bitter undertone to this, though it made me smile and I don't dispute it.


A very worthwhile link here. Why I quit. Source is perhaps dubious but it raises some convincing points. In case you fear bias, it slates microsoft from an unusually historic perspective and then slates linux for being indifferent towards desktop users. Coherently written however, I strong recommend reading it.

 

[Martins]

Because many linux distros are faster to boot up. Its performance is excellent and its performance is the same the day I installed it. It does not get gradually slower and bloated and I don't spend hours updating it.

Tell that to my NC10 on a 3g connection.

110mb of updates? Noooo!
Youtube? Forget about it...


Windows 7 on the other hand... runs just fine... which is entirely the opposite of what I expected!

 

[NickK]

Linux isn't used by researchers as a cost cutting measure. The entire physics community runs scientific linux, which is a red hat derivative. This is a consequence of the vast majority of them being competant programers who dislike wasting time fighting with windows. ssh and the like rather aid integration with other computers and the grid.

I think this is based on the fact that universities use unix and linux has now replaced much of of the unix market. People use what they're familiar with for speed - as you point out.

I'm pretty certain cern doesn't have budget contraints. I'm also certain the reason it doesn't run windows is that it would be an enormous handicap with no benefits. Not everyone is using their computer as a desktop.

Every research establishment has financial constraints. A cheaper OS and one that people are familar with (reduces skilling costs) means they can put the money to something that fits their goals.

If open source copies everything, and indeed copies it badly, where are they copying from? I assume you mean the linux kernel is reverse engineered from microsoft code? Or is the comment based purely on open office not precisely matching microsoft office?

If you looked at the original X11 desktops and then windows, there is a very noticeable copying.

Linux doesn't really do research. It's more a very, very large group of people playing with code in the interests of making computers do what they want them to. What do you have in mind by "concept of the operating system?" Clarify your points please

The majority of public advancements that are mainstream are sold on Microsoft/Apple - because the financial business model says they'll get the maximum return on that platform.

Even as a desktop OS I now prefer linux, though I was forced into it by the eee pc 701 and xandros. I do not like xandros. Had I never bought the eee, I'd be in the crowd saying windows is good enough. I am glad to have been educated further.

My first introduction to unix was SunOS back in about 1992 at uni. Mosaic on X11 was the web browser..

I see you have been arguing this point for longer than I have. A somewhat bitter undertone to this, though it made me smile and I don't dispute it.

A very worthwhile link here. Why I quit. Source is perhaps dubious but it raises some convincing points. In case you fear bias, it slates microsoft from an unusually historic perspective and then slates linux for being indifferent towards desktop users. Coherently written however, I strong recommend reading it.

It seems that the emerging challenges for the linux kernel on the desktop never seem to get whole-heartedly tackled by any full time developer, and only get a sideways glance when the problems are so obvious that even those on the linux kernel mailing list are willing to complain about them.

This goes inline with my statement about being a half implemented, it may be functional but development effort isn't put into smoothing the edges.

It's like doing a job and never finishing it..

 

[dangerstat]

Firstly science departments in universities use Linux because is the best platform for research, it's *nothing* to do with cost. My old university spent near to £180,000 on a high performance cluster do you really think 30 odd Windows licenses where the limiting factor ... I think not!

The reason they use Linux (and OS X is popular too) is because it integrates all core components to computational research. Most compilers are installed by default - TeX is much easier to use on Linux. There's more software developed for Linux machines (in the physics community) than any other platform.

When you start talking about clusters, Linux has made MASSIVE contributions - Google beowolf clusters for clues. Look at the new linux file system - which is only matched by ZFS which, guess what, is being released as OPEN SOURCE software. Is it so surprising that Linux runs on over 80% of the worlds top five hundred super computers - erm guess what - NO!

I suppose Eclipse RCP is a "copy" of something too? And Compiz fusion? What about fundamental package management systems aptitude and yum?

 

[NickK]

Firstly science departments in universities use Linux because is the best platform for research, it's *nothing* to do with cost. My old university spent near to £180,000 on a high performance cluster do you really think 30 odd Windows licenses where the limiting factor ... I think not!

I think the cost of licences is a factor regardless of the budget.

The reason they use Linux (and OS X is popular too) is because it integrates all core components to computational research. Most compilers are installed by default - TeX is much easier to use on Linux. There's more software developed for Linux machines (in the physics community) than any other platform.

If I'm a home user then 90% of that doesn't make a difference.

If I'm a researcher then it's free and bundled. The GCC compiler chain is very low tech but compiles things which is good enough for most people.

When you start talking about clusters, Linux has made MASSIVE contributions - Google beowolf clusters for clues. Look at the new linux file system - which is only matched by ZFS which, guess what, is being released as OPEN SOURCE software. Is it so surprising that Linux runs on over 80% of the worlds top five hundred super computers - erm guess what - NO!

I could give you beowulf. Last time that unix made a true jump for an operating system was Kerbos.

I suppose Eclipse RCP is a "copy" of something too? And Compiz fusion? What about fundamental package management systems aptitude and yum?

Well all RCP is a library to link against for common functionality over platforms. This is been done many times - just as DaaS has.

Compviz is just a new window manager with 3D screens.

 

[zinc]

Tell that to my NC10 on a 3g connection.

110mb of updates? Noooo!

So you voluntarily download the updates on a 3g connection!? What distribution were you using that it forced you to download the updates on your connection? All distros I've used the update application asks if you would like to install the updates, then you click install and it downloads and installs them.

I don't know about other distros but I believe ubuntu is looking to improve their update-manager for the next release. Including detecting a mobile or 3g connection and placing a big warning to the user before they click download and install. Also they say that the updates will be a lot smaller in karmic as they will use a an algorithm to only send over the bytes that are new instead of the whole update. More below, I read a different article about it but can't find it

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AptSyncInKarmicSpec

Youtube? Forget about it...

What about youtube? slow download? slow performance?
Never had any trouble with youtube and I have a eeepc 901, although it will never play iplayer in HD.

Windows 7 on the other hand... runs just fine... which is entirely the opposite of what I expected!

Yea it might be fine now but over time it will start to slow down, ever noticed after about 6-12 months your computer becomes slow on windows? It's never the same performance the week you installed it. This might not be the case with windows 7, we just have to wait and see.

 

[kkelly]

tbh, I love linux on my netbook and my older machine (nas/ushare box) my only complaints are flash on my netbook is dire, and the hassle I have with samba/ushare. Although I beleive most of my issues are just my own lack of knowledge.

 

[BigglesPiP]

My EEE 901 does struggle to play flash video, but this seems to be down to firefox being slow.

 

[GarethDW]

What success criteria are we using to determine whether Linux has 'beaten' Windows? Or am I reading too much into this and is it simply a case of highest number of users?

Personally, I don't care for the 'most popular' OS... I use an OS that suits my needs. At the moment, I use Xubuntu the most (by a massive margin), followed by Leopard on my Mac Mini HTPC, Linpus on my netbook and lastly Vista for a bit of gaming.

If, however, we're determining whether one OS has beaten another in terms of its usefulness, then in my case - and YMMV - Linux has already won.

 

[BigglesPiP]

Only real way we can measure it is share of computers, on which Linux use recently soared passed 1%.

 

[azmi]

I'm curious as what printer he was having problems installing ?

Ubuntu picks up most printers these days although you do need to pay attention to the wording for the drivers..

ie:

Say you have a canon printer and it's picked it up.. The wording opposite states recommended driver.

That almost certainly IS NOT the right driver.. You haven't paid attention to the model No. that was highlighted.

Try scrolling down and select your model No. THEN click recommended driver.

my printer is Lexmark X3480 , I have try all recommended and then, I googled it and found that my printer was not supported in Ubuntu.

 

[PhilGQ]

From what I hear, Linux supports more hardware than any other OS ever, of course thats not much help if its not the hardware you have. Hardware support really can't be compared to Apple's since it has the benefit of only needing to support a handfull of hardware configurations in comparison to Windows and Linux.

I think as long as your careful and be prepared to spend a little extra on the right hardware then you will do fine. Back in the bad old days when a 512K ADSL and Cable connection where to be only dreamed of. We had the dreadful winmodem saga. But if you spent a little more you get a 'splendid' hardware modem that would work. The same now applies with wificards. The problem is that if you buy a cheep computer you get crap components. This causes somewhat of a conundrum since a one of the boons of Linux is its cost.

The real advantage Windows and Apple has is they are so much in the public conscience already. The small foothold Linux has is spread so thinly between distros that it barely noticeable.

Its all about marketing and putting Linux in the mind of the consumer the big Linux vendors with plenty of cash (I am thinking mainly of RH and Novell) focus on the business side and don't really try to entice Joe Public into it products.

Personally I am not sure I want Linux to take over the world, Windows has been gradually getting more an more geared to stupid people and Windows 7 is the worst offender in my not so humble opinion. If Linux gets 90% market share then it will have to cater for stupid people as well. I think a nice target would be 10% market share Apple has less than this and enjoys good 3rd part support.

I am not saying that Linux shouldn't be easy to use, I stay firmly in Gnome and don't touch the command line if it can be avoided, but an OS should be intuitive not patronising. I would selfishly (and perhaps snobishly) prefer that Linux keeps a bit of its ruggedness and be superior underdog of the OS world.