Windows, Linux, The Debate: which is best?
Cybe R. Wizard
cyber_wizard at mindspring.com
Tue Jan 17 06:46:39 UTC 2006
I'd like to quote a post from 2004 by Kelsey Bjarnason on alt.os.linux.
When someone said Linux was always in the future:
> ROFL. Let me give you a few quotes to ponder.
> "Up and running, not up and coming"
> "Not Today"
> "Wait for us, we're the leaders"
> Do you know where those came from? From the OS/2 camp. When IBM had
> released its latest version of OS/2, and Microsoft's competitive
> offering was facing delays, slipping schedules and much public
> Windows is not "always in the here and now", it is frequently in the
> "maybe tomorrow" category. In fact, that's where it is *right now*.
> The version of Windows which is supposed to magically cure all those
> security problems, render viruses harmless, make a perfect cup of
> coffee and tie your shoelaces is going to be released - *maybe* - in
> 2006... but, according to MS, with a crippled feature set. And it'll
> *still* only run on an x86.
> Meanwhile, Linux is running everything from palmtops to
> supercomputers and doesn't have the virus problem. What it does have
> is a rich set of applications and tools, and a license that lets
> *you* decide what to do with *your* computer.
> But, since you're suggesting Windows is "here and now" and Linux is
> "sometime later", let's see what Windows offers now that Linux
> doesn't, shall we?
> Windows, of course, has a journalling file system, NTFS. Mind you,
> as I understand it, NTFS only does metadata journalling... unlike,
> say, ext3.
> Windows, of course, supports multiple virtual desktops. Oops, no, it
> doesn't. Yet virtually all the WMs and DMs for Linux do.
> Windows, of course, supports multiple GUIs, from lightweight ones
> good for remote access to serious heavyweights with all the bells and
> whistles. Ooops, no, it doesn't. Linux does.
> Windows, of course, supports sensible package management for
> installation and removal of programs, even when those programs aren't
> from Microft, right? Ooops, no, it doesn't. It doesn't even have
> this for its own applications.
> But wait... Windows *does* have "Windows update", a nice little tool
> for determining, downloading and deploying the latest bugfixes and
> the like... except it only works for Windows. It doesn't even do
> this for Microsoft's own applications, such as Visual Studio or
> Office. Funny, my Linux system has just such an update feature...
> but it works for all the packages it knows about - several thousand
> of them from hundreds of vendors.
> Well, okay... but Windows comes bundled with all the things you need
> to get up and running, right? Development tools for the code
> monkeys, database servers for the DB geeks, web servers, mail servers
> and the like for web developers, irc clients, IM clients, streaming
> media tools, intrusion detection, firewalling, spreadsheets, word
> processors, spell checkers, dictionaries, browsers supporting
> ad-blocking, popup blocking, tabbed browsing and the like... Windows
> does include all this, right? Sorry, was that a no? Oh, well, Linux
> How about hardware support? I have some old 486 boxes here which are
> perfectly usable... I *can* run current Windows versions on them,
> right? No? Hmm; I can run current Linux versions on them just fine.
> Well, okay, how about configuration options? Let's try something
> simple: I have a server which has no monitor attached - I do all the
> maintenance via an ssh connection. So I don't need - or want - a GUI
> on the box. Just wastes resources which could be better used for
> what the box actually does, nameley, serving. I *can* remove the GUI
> in Windows, right? Hmm. I can in Linux.
> Well, okay, that brings up another item - administration. Windows
> does, in fact, make it simple to adminster the machine via the
> command line, right? That is, I can perform every administrative
> task, from starting and stopping services to user and group
> administration to group policy editing to audit tracking and more,
> all from the command line, right? Even so far as doing software
> isntallation, removal and upgrades? Whoops, no, not quite. The tools
> to do such things in Windows are at best primitive, and sometimes
> don't exist at all. Odd, though, that I can do all that in Linux.
> Hmm. This is getting more limiting by the minute. Okay, here's an
> easy one. I want to perform a series of operations on a half-dozen
> machines at the same time. Why? Well, I'm upgrading the
> accountants' machines, and the simplest way is just to ssh into each
> of them, then issue a couple of commands to start the update. So, as
> I said, I just ssh into them, set the terminal to echo the input
> across all the sessions, then go. Windows can do this, right?
> Whoops... Windows doesn't even come with ssh, does it? Well, okay,
> so we'll use telnet. I *can* fire up 6 telnet sessions and, by
> typing in one, have the information automatically transmitted to all
> of them, right? Guess not.
> Well, at least, finally, XP brought in multiple user logins. So now,
> the wife can use her machine and I can log into it, do some word
> processing or whatever, and she can keep right on using the machine,
> right? Oops... nope, that's Linux again.
> Wait a sec... Windows, as it ships, *cannot* do, or *does not*
> Office tools
> Development tools
> Server tools
> Database tools
> Multiple virtual desktop support
> A range of GUIs
> The ability to completely disable the GUI
> Tabbed browsing
> Pop-up blocking
> Ad blocking
> cross-terminal-session input broadcasting
> IRC clients
> IM clients
> Streaming media
> Command-line administration that works
> Package management
> Software updating that works
> Intrusion detection
> File-alteration monitoring
> Flexible firewalling
> Multi-user logons
> Decent graphics editing
> Decent video editing
> Okay, now wait a sec. All of this is available, right now, in
> Linux. Most of the popular distros - Debian, DeadRat, Mandrake,
> Gentoo, SuSe, etc have all of these and more. Several of them are
> also available for a variety of hardware platforms. This is all here
> now, and Windows doesn't have a bit of it. This, in your mind, makes
> "Linux in the future, and Windows in the here and now"?
> Oh, wait. I get it. You're saying "Windows is now" because there
> are more people willing to *pay* to get such limitations than there
> are people willing to be freed of such limitations for a lower price,
> or even no price at all. Well... yes, that does seem to be the case,
> doesn't it? Doesn't make much sense, but there it is.
> BTW, for the record, I do, in fact, still run Windows on occasion.
> It makes for a good gaming station. On the other hand, if faced with
> paying $200 for a new version of Windows, or a similar amount for a
> game console... well... let's just say my trusty old Win2K setup will
> remain just that - Win2K.
But I guess that's just one man's opinion, right?
Cybe R. Wizard
Q: What's the difference between MicroSoft Windows and a virus?
A: Apart from the fact that viruses are supported by their authors,
use optimized, small code and usually perform well, none.
More information about the ubuntu-users