Would linux users please just give me an idea of the benefits of the linux OS. Details would also be great of:

• length of time using windows and linux
  
• when you changed OS
  
• did you buy a windows based system then change
  
• buy a PC with linux pre-installed
  
• or buy a PC without an operating system then install linux

I don't use Linux much....mostly just to fool around...I dwlded Mandrake Linux about 6 months ago and find it prety useless...I like Longhorn 4074 far better.....although I think all the OS's have downsides.....I think they should make a hybrid - Mac OS X's layout with with Linux's stability and Windows compatibility


(btw I posted that Control panel screenshot u wanted in my Longhorn thread).

Well i used one linux - linux knopppix and i would change to linux for sure IF there were as much softare for it as for linux thats the major reason why i don't use it.
And/or kinda of wine better then the actual one that would make possible all the app's for windows work on linux..

quote:

---

I think they should make a hybrid - Mac OS X's layout with with Linux's stability and Windows compatibility

---

I haven't used Linux long yet, I'm more used to Windows. But a big advantage of Linux is offcourse the security and that you know more about what's happening on your computer. It's a big change from Windows to Linux and it's not really advised if you don't know something about computers.
The open-source is also a good advantage as more people workl o it all over the world and Linux is also being updated more often than Windows.

If I buy a computer there's no software installed as I don't like that and because I set the computer together myself. So afterwards I install a OS. Linux is also a lot cheaper (you can get it free or for a small price with a manual) than Windows.

Saying what's the best OS is not easy as each one of them has his advantages and disadvantages. If you choose Linux you have to wonder which distribution you're gonna get.

But there are on this board people who know more about Linux like Choli, PlusFan and others .

quote:

---

Originally posted by mad_onion
That would be great but the problem is as soon as you try to make everything work on your OS like microsoft have done you lose some stability and it cant ever look are beutiful or seamless as macOSX. Its impossible.
Personally, i like Windows because of the combatibility and their stability and beauty is increasing alll the time.

---

i dont want to be the prophet of doom for linux users but i think stability is diretly related to levels of compatability. As more programs are made to work on linux i think it will become more unstable and unsecure

quote:

---

Originally posted by mad_onion
i dont want to be the prophet of doom for linux users but i think stability is diretly related to levels of compatability. As more programs are made to work on linux i think it will become more unstable and unsecure

---

Making more programs for an OS doesn't make the OS less stable unless you install them all or something...

However, making an OS so that it can support a greater variety of things does make it unstable, because not only do you complicate things by having different bits coded to add support for this or that, but you have to ensure that they all agree with each other.  This is the problem with Windows, to be honest... because it is trying to gain the monopoly as an operating system, it tries as much as possible to support past, present and future programs and processes, sacrificing stability. My long-term prediction is that as OSes get more advanced, the rate of development will slow down.  Eventually, only a minority will use an OS older than the latest one because of its longevity... the OS developers will then be able to phase out cross-compatibility for further speed and stability.  It could be ages before this happens though

quote:

---

Originally posted by fluffy_lobster
Making more programs for an OS doesn't make the OS less stable unless you install them all or something...

However, making an OS so that it can support a greater variety of things does make it unstable, because not only do you complicate things by having different bits coded to add support for this or that, but you have to ensure that they all agree with each other.  This is the problem with Windows, to be honest... because it is trying to gain the monopoly as an operating system, it tries as much as possible to support past, present and future programs and processes, sacrificing stability. My long-term prediction is that as OSes get more advanced, the rate of development will slow down.  Eventually, only a minority will use an OS older than the latest one because of its longevity... the OS developers will then be able to phase out cross-compatibility for further speed and stability.  It could be ages before this happens though

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by blade

quote:

---

Originally posted by fluffy_lobster
Making more programs for an OS doesn't make the OS less stable unless you install them all or something...

However, making an OS so that it can support a greater variety of things does make it unstable, because not only do you complicate things by having different bits coded to add support for this or that, but you have to ensure that they all agree with each other.  This is the problem with Windows, to be honest... because it is trying to gain the monopoly as an operating system, it tries as much as possible to support past, present and future programs and processes, sacrificing stability. My long-term prediction is that as OSes get more advanced, the rate of development will slow down.  Eventually, only a minority will use an OS older than the latest one because of its longevity... the OS developers will then be able to phase out cross-compatibility for further speed and stability.  It could be ages before this happens though

---

Exactly.....imho I think that we should start over....it could takes many years but it would be worth it...re-code almost all of the older programs into current compatibility and change the way the OS works, causing a far greater stability and a higher security level, though this will likely never happen...

---

You could never combine linux and windows. It would be so unstable it would crash before even booting. Of course it would be some shady error in kernel32.dll

And it would be Microsoft's fault.


Although i think someone should yoink microsoft's exe patent so linux can use that format...

used Redhat 8 and 9, knopix, mandrake, suse and some others
planing to install Mandrake 10 on another box

I don't want to take part into that disucssion, I'm sure all of you already know what I would say but

quote:

---

As more programs are made to work on linux i think it will become more unstable and unsecure

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonesour
You could never combine linux and windows. It would be so unstable it would crash before even booting. Of course it would be some shady error in kernel32.dll

And it would be Microsoft's fault.


Although i think someone should yoink microsoft's exe patent so linux can use that format...

---

Interesting debate going on here, so I feel I must chuck in my two cents worth.

Linux stability falling with more support: Won't happen. This is for one very simple reason: Linux is the kernel of the OS, not the entire OS. If the stability falls, it'll be in X or bash or Wine or something, but the kernel will remain just as stable. Of course, it'll appear as though Linux is less stable, which I guess is the whole issue. At least you can just fall back to a text console and solve the problem, rather than reboot like in Windows.
Combining Windows and Linux: I believe there is a Linux app they call Wine...
Linux using Windows .exe format: run Wine. It's getting better all the time.

Which is best? Depends what you want to use it for.
Speed and stability: Linux
Multimedia and app range: Windows

Of course if you can't decide, do what I do: use both. Dual-boot WinXP and Fedora Core 2 is what I run, and I have FreeBSD 4.8 on disc for an old laptop I want to get working.

Edit: Wow, that seems more like my £20-worth...

thanks for all the replies, this is the first time one of my threads has got onto two pages. So im happy!!!
I havent really changed my mind. I still think Windows is superior because of compatibility and it isnt even that unstable anymore. That was back in 98 days.
Either linux really is inferior or you linux users really suck at persuading.
PS WOW i got patchou to post on my thread, first time for that too. This is great!!!
Please carry on posting you still might change my mind

Linux isn't inferior: it's just different. That's what a lot of people forget. I use both, because I find a use for both.

IMO the only reason linux is more stable is because everyone can see the source code an find bugs, however, this can be really problematic as ud have to spend a full day at least searching for all the patches, and then some patches could intefere with others, and cause even more crashes.

Not quite. True, lInux is more stable as there are more people fixing the bugs, but you don't have to search for the patches. All changes to the code are handled by the project team. Code changes are only finalised when they have been fully tested (hence why they use CVS repositries). The latest stable code is usually a separate download. Anyway, most distros package some form of update utility (like RedHat's up2date), so all you have to worry about then is when the distro company release an updated package (you'll be notified).

Put simply, updating a mainstream Linux distro is like updating Windows: it can be (semi-)automated, and it all comes from a single source.

I've used linux a bit and it messed up my pc really badly, switched back to winXp

You probably just changed the wrong setting or something: Linux doesn't hide its config files behind loads of GUIs, even if distro makers try to.

I used to Have Linux, Deleted because it was too confusing for me

quote:

---

Originally posted by mad_onion
Would linux users please just give me an idea of the benefits of the linux OS. Details would also be great of:

• length of time using windows and linux
  
• when you changed OS
  
• did you buy a windows based system then change
  
• buy a PC with linux pre-installed
  
• or buy a PC without an operating system then install linux

---

quote:

---

Well i used one linux - linux knopppix and i would change to linux for sure IF there were as much softare for it as for linux thats the major reason why i don't use it.

---

quote:

---

And/or kinda of wine better then the actual one that would make possible all the app's for windows work on linux..

---

quote:

---

I haven't used Linux long yet, I'm more used to Windows. But a big advantage of Linux is offcourse the security and that you know more about what's happening on your computer. It's a big change from Windows to Linux and it's not really advised if you don't know something about computers.

---

quote:

---

The open-source is also a good advantage as more people workl o it all over the world and Linux is also being updated more often than Windows.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by blade

quote:

---

Originally posted by mad_onion
That would be great but the problem is as soon as you try to make everything work on your OS like microsoft have done you lose some stability and it cant ever look are beutiful or seamless as macOSX. Its impossible.
Personally, i like Windows because of the combatibility and their stability and beauty is increasing alll the time.

---

not necissarily...depends how they go about the coding...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patchou
I don't want to take part into that disucssion, I'm sure all of you already know what I would say but

quote:

---

As more programs are made to work on linux i think it will become more unstable and unsecure

---

can it really go lower than what it is today?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by raceprouk
Interesting debate going on here, so I feel I must chuck in my two cents worth.

Linux stability falling with more support: Won't happen. This is for one very simple reason: Linux is the kernel of the OS, not the entire OS. If the stability falls, it'll be in X or bash or Wine or something, but the kernel will remain just as stable. Of course, it'll appear as though Linux is less stable, which I guess is the whole issue. At least you can just fall back to a text console and solve the problem, rather than reboot like in Windows.

---

code:

---

startx

---

quote:

---

Combining Windows and Linux: I believe there is a Linux app they call Wine...
Linux using Windows .exe format: run Wine. It's getting better all the time.

Which is best? Depends what you want to use it for.
Speed and stability: Linux
Multimedia and app range: Windows

Of course if you can't decide, do what I do: use both. Dual-boot WinXP and Fedora Core 2 is what I run, and I have FreeBSD 4.8 on disc for an old laptop I want to get working.

Edit: Wow, that seems more like my £20-worth...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by raceprouk
Not quite. True, lInux is more stable as there are more people fixing the bugs, but you don't have to search for the patches. All changes to the code are handled by the project team. Code changes are only finalised when they have been fully tested (hence why they use CVS repositries). The latest stable code is usually a separate download. Anyway, most distros package some form of update utility (like RedHat's up2date), so all you have to worry about then is when the distro company release an updated package (you'll be notified).

Put simply, updating a mainstream Linux distro is like updating Windows: it can be (semi-)automated, and it all comes from a single source.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vantage
I used to Have Linux, Deleted because it was too confusing for me

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patchou

can it really go lower than what it is today?

---

a few things

>patchou just hates linux

>correct me if i'm wrong but this forum has been running on a redhat linux 9 server for years.

>most games are released on the windows platform first

>it depends on what you want. i would eventually like to run a redhat server on my lan for testing websites and stuff.

great i hate linux too so i guess its just patchou and me aganist the rest of the forum which seem to love linux. patchou rocks even more than before. but i dont agree with him about linux, it is more stable than windows. its just when someone like patchou hates it so much its hard not to bad mouth it

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheBlasphemer
I dont think linux is better than windows, but i dont think windows is better than linux either.
It all depends on where you use it for.

---

quote:

---

I have 3 boxes, one I use as my router, with Debian linux installed, console only.
One with Debian and KDE installed dualbooting with windows 98.
And my main computer with Windows XP.
The reason why I use windows xp as my primary pc is because I am forced to... in school we use windows, we have to, I could take a knoppix cd, but then they'd charge me for hacking (yes, the sysadmins at school are n00bs ).

---

quote:

---

Another thing is compatibility... Almost any utility there is for windows exists on linux too, mostly the linux version is even better, or the windows version is just a port of the linux version.
However, when it comes to games it's more difficult to play on linux. Not only are most games windows only, even the ones with a linux binary, like Unreal Tournament, are just ports of the windows app, mostly resulting in lower performances

---

quote:

---

Anyway, I'm tired, I wanna go to bed, I've had this discussion before and I keep my opinion both OS's have their own speciality.
Linux for my server and internet stuff, windows for my workstation..

Oh, and about stability: I have reboot my XP machine every week or so because something crashed. My router hasn't been rebooted for:

quote:

---

debian:~# uptime
01:07:54 up 115 days,  4:40,  1 user,  load average: 0.07, 0.02, 0.00

---

That isnt much for linux terms, but it still beats my windows boxes
And dont get me wrong, this box isnt just doing nothing. It's running a webserver, mysql server, mailserver, ftp server, and sometimes a few peer2peer clients too
So don't you dare saying XP crashes because I do more with it...
If you dare to say that, I'll tell you my routers CPU and my XP's CPU

GRTZ TB

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlusFan
I haven't played UT, but I heard of some people that they have higher fps on Linux when playing UT, than on Windows..

---

Gentoo Linux is by far the best Linux distro out there.  It is also one of the most complex and is harder to setup/install/configure than any other Linux distro.  Most others have a graphical install thats point and click.. Gentoo uses portage wich optomizes your system, you can make a powerful computer out of some old 166.

Benefits of Linux:
-No known viruses (unless im really uninformed)
-Stable
-Secure
-Open source

Downside:
-Compatibility

Benefits of Windows:
-Compatibility
-I guess more user friendly

Downside:
-Viruses every 5 minutes
-Many vulnerability defects

Thats pretty much the way I see it, I don't think it's worth it switching to Linux unless you're a developper/programmer

the upsides to linux deff. outweigh the ones for windows, haha

quote:

---

Originally posted by crazihouse
Benefits of Linux:
-No known viruses (unless im really uninformed)

---

quote:

---

-Stable
-Secure
-Open source

Downside:
-Compatibility

Benefits of Windows:
-Compatibility
-I guess more user friendly

---

quote:

---

Downside:
-Viruses every 5 minutes

---

quote:

---

-Many vulnerability defects

---

quote:

---

Do not click any hyperlinks that you do not trust. Type them in the Address bar yourself.

---

quote:

---

Top Vulnerabilities to Windows Systems
# W1 Internet Information Services (IIS)
# W2 Microsoft SQL Server (MSSQL)
# W3 Windows Authentication
# W4 Internet Explorer (IE)
# W5 Windows Remote Access Services
# W6 Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC)
# W7 Windows Scripting Host (WSH)
# W8 Microsoft Outlook Outlook Express
# W9 Windows Peer to Peer File Sharing (P2P)
# W10 Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)

---

quote:

---

Three years ago, the SANS Institute and the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) at the FBI released a document summarizing the Ten Most Critical Internet Security Vulnerabilities. Thousands of organizations used that list, and the expanded Top Twenty lists that followed one and two years later, to prioritize their efforts so they could close the most dangerous holes first. The vulnerable services that led to the examples above Blaster, Slammer, and Code Red, as well as NIMDA worms - are on that list.

---

quote:

---

Thats pretty much the way I see it, I don't think it's worth it switching to Linux unless you're a developper/programmer

---