Windows, Linux, The Debate: which is best?

[James Diehl]

It really depends on what kind of programs you want to
run!  I love my Linux programs, but I have to use
Windows for my college studies.  I have to have
Microsoft Office products, VB & databases that work
only with MS Access.  My online courses require that I
use IE to connect!  I run Ubuntu and Suse the rest of
the time, and am trying to become a
developer/contributor for them.  I may have started
out with MS-DOS, then Windows, but since I started
using Linux, I've found a whole new way to enjoy using
a computer!
I just got through installing my favorite
browser(Firefox) on this Windows system!  I guess you
can figure out what I like!
Diehl, James

--- "Cybe R. Wizard" <cyber_wizard at mindspring.com>
wrote:

> 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:
> 
> Quote below
> -----------------
> > 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
> > ridicule.
> > 
> > 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
> > does.
> > 
> > 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*
> > include:
> > 
> > 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
> > ssh
> > 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
> 
=== message truncated ===