10 Things Linux Does Better Than Windows

[Unregistered]

Although I generally agree with your article I cannot concur that BSOD (non recoverable) or equivalent does not occur in Linux. I used Linux Mint 64 bit and within a 4 week period had to do 5 reinstalls. Even after extensive forum queries nobody could find the solution to blank boot screens, endless scrolling of "initrd" messages, complete lockup etc. So I installed Windows XP; 12 weeks later not a single crash no BSOD's. I agree Linux is adaptable and generally user friendly BUT it is immature and prone to crashes on a constant basis and really not ready as an everyday OS.

Wow. I've used Linux Mint for the last 2 years (before that, I used Debian since 2004). Never had problems like that. In fact, I found Linux Mint to work flawlessly on every system I've installed it on. Supports hardware much better than Ubuntu.

That said, what I would recommend is that you grab some blank CD or DVD's and make LiveCD/DVD's of some popular distros (Ubuntu, Mint, Mandriva, Fedora, and OpenSUSE might be a good start - there are many other really good ones, these just come to mind off the top of my head). Try them out in Live form. The one that works the best should work well installed on your system, too.

 

[Unregistered]

What I find funny is the hoopla that surrounded Vista. I mean, such a fiasco would have crippled almost any other company. But Microsoft can release a product that is despised and shunned, and a few years later it's all but forgotten. That shows Windows has very little competition.

 

[OriginalJoeCool]

That comment above was from me. I didn't realize I had been logged out.

 

[Tharic-Nar]

Windows ME, people didn't forget that one . Vista was MEr2, Win7 is the new XP. Will Win7 stick around for 10 years? Probably not, since MS has let slip about Win8 a few times already... which is kind of like Longhorn (who remembers that?), delayed and delayed and renamed, feature stripped, released late, loathed, then 2 years later... so we need to wait for Win9 or just give up and go Linux? MS will probably break compatibility with old apps anyway as they go 64bit only, but who knows.

 

[Unregistered]

I wonder what would happen if apple were to unlock the Mac. As far as I know, it will work on regular PCs. They just have it coded to look for an apple-specific security chip on the motherboard.

 

[OriginalJoeCool]

Oops, it happened again! I checked remember me this time.

 

[Kayden]

1 - Partitioning

I hear you talk about the right business move a lot and honestly if Win doesn't support Linux, why should they make it accessible in the default Disk Manager? I only use the under Admin Tools>Computer Management>Storage>Disk Manager and it works perfectly fine, as long as you know what you are doing, this is the case with Linux as well.

The problem is that Linux is trying to fit in with Win and the Linux community (which is fantastic btw) have a say so in what goes into a build of Linux, no one has a say so but MS for Win and your pointing this out to be a down side? I agree it is inconvenient and short sighted on MS part but this is because MS wants to make their stuff accessible to what they support, not what ever one wants.

That formula is what make Win environment so nice to use on a broad scale because you don't have to have a degree or years of exp to set it up, all things considered I would like to have a broader range of support but it just wont happen. It is unfortunate and this will not change until MS needs to fit into the Linux market, which isn't going to happen in the short-term at all.

2 - Activation

I agree with you 100% on this. The major pain is that if you change a major piece of hardware it want's to reactivate and it's total nonsense.

3 - Customization

This is short sighted here, to say that there isn't customization available is erroneous because you only talk about first party options not third, which there are quite a few options out there. There is Win Blinds, Hyperdesk and I am sure others that you can find to make those changes to what you want. This goes back to my previous argument that it's a closed system and not much user input is considered when they make an OS, however in Linux there is a lot of say so from the community but it doesn't mean Win is without options, you just have to look for them. The same goes for Linux as well not all builds offer the flexibility that you describe but you only point out the common examples for Linux but none for Win even if they are third party and that's disappointing my friend.

4 - Automatic User Logon

I am going to call shenanigans on this Rob. There is a much simpler way to set this up in Vista & Win 7 and in the run box just type in "netplwiz" this will bring up a user account windows and you choose what user you want to login, uncheck "Users must enter Username...." and it will ask you to put in the pass for that account and then you restart and it will log right in for you. Now granted this doesn't give the time delay but it works in Windows and I have been using it since Vista, just like Linux you just need to know the command. The solution I used for XP was a program from Microsoft and that was TweakUI and that made life so much simpler.

5 - Troubleshooting

I disagree here as well. I can TS a Win problem and recover files no problem, granted it make take another Win machine to get your files but it is possible to do. Rob you said "In Linux, the problem might require some technical knowledge to fix, but you should never be far from your data, and fixing the issue is almost always a possibility." The same thing goes for Win if you have the knowledge as well. I am not saying that it isn't easier in Linux to fix a problem and get right back into your OS, what I am saying is that you need the knowledge to do it and in Linux you need much more then you do in Win to fix the problems you describe.

6 - No-Nonsense OS Updates

This is the nature of the OS to require a reboot, how they handle security updates is so much more different in Linux and Win, why? Because it was built differently, this is an inconvenience yes but it's much simpler to do this for the common consumer, I know this is also a factor for Macs as well granted not as often but it still happens. I know Linux doesn't have as many problems with hacking, viruses, malware and etc but when it does you might see those rules change as well. I just think it is something this OS hasn't had to deal with yet and until it does, I think the ease of updating may go away to make sure it remains secure.

7 - Easy Installation of Common Applications

I don't disagree here. With MS locking down the 64bit OS that requires a cert for the installer, it's made things much harder for someone making a simple program for it.

8 - Interoperability

Your right Win doesn't play well with other OS's but really it goes back to what I said before it doesn't need, Linux does. I agree though it should, especially now.

9 - Command-Line

Defiantly the CL is much more powerful in Linux, but it is also still at the heart of the OS so it became more powerful over time. The Win platform abandoned the CL when it went to Win 2000 and beyond, the OS was no longer a GUI on top of a DOS shell, the GUI is the OS. That makes Linux powerful in that you can remove what you want so you are not bogged down with a ton of other stuff you don't want running, but Win is about ease of use so they have a lot of stuff running to make it easier to use, that is their strength. There is give and take with each OS but MS went the direction that users want to see what they are doing and get direct feedback from that visually and it's paid off in more ways then one.

10 - Performance & Stability

I don't have to be a major Linux user to agree with this. Even with the improvements in Win 7 there are still times my sys will stall a program for an unknown reason and it damned annoying! This goes back to installing what you want perk with Linux in my opinion, because you don't have all that junk it wont be a major problem.


I do disagree with you on many of your points Rob but I do agree with others hands down. The only problem I see with this article is that you showed Win shortcomings but none of the options provided by third parties or knowing the Win OS well enough to make it do what you want. These OS's benefit from an in-depth knowledge of how, what and where things need to be done to make it work the way you want. It is however a harsh reality that Linux requires a lot of input from the user and requires them to go out and find what will work, but it's easy to break and then you need to know where to start looking to fix it. This isn't the case with a Win OS a majority of the time, if you stick with WHQL and reputable companies for your software choices most of the time you won't have a problem, then it's sometimes easy to fix but either an update or just uninstalling the program which isn't possible with Linux very easily.

This isn't to say Win is perfect though but it's there to be simple so it's easier to use. Linux on the other hand requires a vast knowledge to get setup and working the way want, this is where average users have a problem. Linux is a powerful tool, but like many tools if you aren't 10% smarter then the thing you are working on then you are bound to break the tool and the thing you are working on as well. I want to use Linux but I doubt I will replace it as my primary OS for my desktop until they make Linux run the programs and games that I enjoy in an easy to use fashion. I will however like to run this on an older machine or an laptop with out a whole lot of power behind it, that way I can get the most out of it.

They both have their place but Linux replacing Win as the majority OS for users is a long long way off. I want to learn Linux and who knows it may find a place on my desktop one day but in the short term I just don't see that happening.

 

[deadrats]

rob,

when you wrote this were you thinking of me, specifically how best to bait me? i appreciate that this site is a for profit site and you need to continuously add fresh content so that your readers will keep coming back and thus justify the fees you charge your advertisers but am i asking too much that you are somewhat honest with yourself?

1) "partitioning" - really? your number 1 choice is perhaps one of the most insignificant parts of an OS. you actually have the nerve to complain that a microsoft OS doesn't support, out of the box, reading and writing of non microsoft file systems?

furthermore, you actually think it's a good thing to allow a partition utility to resize partitions after they have been created and data is stored on them? really?!? does the term "data corruption" mean anything to you?

for the record windows does support some linux file systems, i recall an ext2 driver that allowed windows to read/write to ext2, but again the reason linux has so many fs choices is because they all suck.

2) "activation" - not really fair; linux as a whole is gpl'd software while windows is a proprietary OS released under a single license per install eula. windows is heavily pirated, while linux, despite being free, is lucky to have under 5% market share. you can't give linux away for free, most users don't want to be bothered by it, but i will grant you that it would be very nice if microsoft either eased up their license terms or made each license significantly cheaper.

3) "customization" - i'll grant you that out of the box the typical linux distro is more customizable than windows but there are numerous themes for windows available if one so desires and even kde can be installed on windows; so you're being real disingenuous with this one.

4) "automatic user logon" - does the term "security risk" mean anything to you? why would you use an OS who's biggest selling point is it's supposedly superior security and then set something up like auto logon that bypasses the first security checkpoint? besides, is it really that much of a pain in the ass to have to spend all of 5 seconds typing in a password?

5) "troubleshooting" - you're kidding me right? as you were writing this article did you say to yourself "i wonder how i can make that new user 'deadrats' laugh the hardest"? linux is easier to troubleshoot than windows? after how many bong hits?

do the following sentences look familiar:

"For those who don't use Linux, or do use Linux but aren't aware, the audio system found within the OS is horrible. Not in quality, features or performance, but rather in configuration and execution."

"Linux's audio system doesn't suck per se - if it works."

yeah, let me me switch to linux right now.

6) "no nonsense OS updates" - have to agree with on this one; i know that i find start->windows update and then choosing what updates i want to be incredibly confusing and ball breaking. i trust i don't need to use the sarcasm tags for you to get that i'm mocking you.

7) "easy installation of common applications" - and the laughs just keep on coming. you find double clicking an executable and hitting "next" a couple of time too difficult?

8) "interoperability" - come one man, you have the audacity to expect a proprietary OS to be designed to work with the competitions OSes? how is that fair, microsoft is on business to make money and unfortunately not making it easy for competing OSes to work with windows is one way of ensuring their product's continued viability. and for the second time, depending on the file system you are using with your dual boot windows can read/write to that file system with the right driver.

9) "command line" first things first, this isn't 1970, you wouldn't buy a car that still used a carburetor and distributor cap with bias ply tires, why would you want to use a cli based OS? but your entire point is nonsensical because within your own bullet point you say "most people will never need to make use of the command-line under Linux"; if that's the case then who cares which OS has the better cli?

as for "you can't go full screen with the windows cli" and "you can't copy and paste with the windows cli", i've been doing both with windows for years, since at least the xp64 days, so i don't know what you're talking about.

10) "performance and stability" - i'm not sure what computers you're been using but the last time i saw a blue screen was when i tried one of those win 8 leaked builds, with regular windows releases i can't remember the last time i had a blue screen; yes the dos based win 9x windows, especially Me, would bsod all the time but with NT based OSes? you can't complain about the stability with a straight face.

with regards to performance; yes vista could be a dog on older hardware but linux distros compiled for i386 are also painfully slow. there are some optimized linux distros that are pretty quick; yoper comes to mind, vector soho, linspire, pc-bsd (i know it's not linux) but that's because their developers use custom compiled kernels with performance patches to extract maximum speed, try a build with a vanilla kernel and then come talk to me about how fast linux is.

win 7 however is fast as hell and even phoronix, a site devoted to linux, has conducted tests that show win 7 beating linux in half the tests; if the leaked build of win 8 is any indication that OS will run like stink on a monkey, which is to be expected considering it's designed to also run on tablets flawlessly.

my final thoughts - windows users seem to be able to live their lives just fine without having to use any "alternate" OSes yet most linux users, by their own admissions, still find themselves having to boot into a windows machine now and then.

that in itself speaks volumes.

 

[marfig]

I don't understand why this thread was revived 10 months later. Yes, it's before my time, but I did read it and didn't think anything in it deserved an opinion this far into it.

For anyone who actually cares to read what Rob writes, they'll learn that his move to full Linux was a somewhat recent event. How about cutting some slack and let him too be passionate about his preferences. Not just you. Because I can see as many flaws in your arguments as you say you see in his.

...

Here's the deal, as the years passed Linux and Windows have moved separate paths. They are today two completely different operating systems with very little (if anything) comparable. At least for desktop users. Development models and strategies, target markets, the desktop ecosystem, all are without possible comparison. The only thing bringing them together is the application landscape, which fortunately finds many common grounds thanks to the efforts of all those caring about porting their apps.

Does Linux do anything better than Windows? Does Windows do anything better than Linux? No. Because that would imply these two operating systems can somehow relate to each other in their purpose. Those of us who use both operating systems on a daily basis quickly come to terms with this, or eventually end up dropping one. The thing is that if we aren't ready to understand Linux for what it is meant to be (above all, a computer OS architecture that encourages experimentation and academic knowledge) and we aren't ready to understand Windows for what it is mean to be (a computer OS architecture meant to serve productivity and dependability requirements) we are doomed to keep missing the point and never take full advantage of these two great operating systems.

This does not necessarily apply to the server market, where both operating systems definitely find a lot more points of contact. But on desktop systems, both operating systems are as far away from each other as one can put them. If there is in fact any mass operating system that can be compared to Windows, that would be MacOS which shares common goals to Windows.

It doesn't matter you choose Linux as your pet OS. When yoyu get a job, most likely you are stuck with Windows because that's exactly what makes Windows so great. It's dependable, produces results whether you are a one man show or a multi-million dollar corporation. And a monkey can use it. On the other hand, it doesn't matter Windows is your pet OS, if you don't want to learn how to use Linux you are missing out on what is by far the greatest demonstration of human ingenuity and global collaboration in computer science history and what is today the most effective way of really knowing your computer and how it works.

I don't care if you want to laugh when others criticize Windows. I myself could laugh at a lot of what you wrote. Microsoft operating systems have been my main OSes for the past 25 years. So I can tell you at the top of my lungs, Windows sucks. Most of it is the result of decisions of which I had no saying, many which I disagree, and there's nothing I can do about it. Meanwhile the application landscape is vastly commercial and the Windows ecosystem has become a steal-or-die deal for many users who can't afford the hundreds of thousands of dollars if they had to buy every application currently installed on their systems. Windows has become one large indirect contributor to human indecency.

Conversely, Linux has been my in-and-out operating system since well the mid to late 90s. This time around it seems to finally have stuck itself on my machine and won't let it go. But I know Linux since when many who are so happy about rooting for it today were still suckling their thumbs. And Linux sucks too. Big time. Just like Windows. It's full of so much political crap these days that it makes me want to vomit. It's collaboration doctrine has mostly become developers-vs-users practice that has been consistently eroding the very principles of FOSS. And it's application landscape is becoming a mesh not of applications that "do one thing, and do one thing well", but applications that "do one thing and do it badly"; riddled with bugs, being maintained through rapid release cycles that have anyone with a sizeable linux system not go a day without having to make one bloody update to some bloody stupid little app.

For a lot more reasons than what a reply box would allow me to point out, both operating systems suck as much as they are great. And it's possibly because of this that I do get a bit sick and tired of all the back and forth that follows when someone decides to point out the flaws in one of them.

 

[Rob Williams]

deadrats and Kayden: Have either of you actually read the article? You're both complaining about some things I didn't even mention, or at least misconstruing them. It's as though you both read the heading titles and nothing else. For the sake of time and due to a total lack of desire, I'm making this response as quick as possible.

Most of these are directed at Kayden's thoughts; I can't stomach deadrats' comments at the moment.

1) File system IDs are universal; it'd take no effort on Microsoft's part to make its partitioner / disk manager show the real file system name rather than just "Unknown". This has nothing to do with Microsoft having to support something else; it's a read-only process, and useful for those who run multiple OSes. Oh, but it is great at one thing: making sure you can never have a perfect partition layout when using multiple OSes. Oh, how it does love creating random 1MB non-partitions, even inside the extended space I tried to dedicate to Linux:



Oh, and on a normal day, the NTFS partition would actually show how much space is used, except due to NTFS being such a ridiculous FS, it loves passing poor-shutdown flags to the drive even when it is in fact shut down properly.

deadrats: Comments like "but again the reason linux has so many fs choices is because they all suck." only go to show how little you know about the subject or are willing to defend Windows by saying whatever's necessary. To date, I've only seen this kind of attitude from Apple zealots... I didn't even realize there were some of you on the Windows' side. To say Linux FSes suck while all Microsoft has NTFS... mind-boggling. I love Linux, but I'd never defend it to the extent where I start making shit up.

2) Microsoft's activation scheme is the reason I crack all of my OSes at the first sign of an issue. I once got screwed over when I planned to get a good night of benchmarking in late one night. Was locked out of the OS (Vista), and Microsoft's call center was closed. I made sure I never ran into that problem ever again.

3) This article wasn't about third-party solutions. Of course you can purchase third-party software to accomplish something the OS doesn't do... that's a given, and it's the reason millions of pieces of software exist, free and commercial. I am talking about out-of-box solutions. If you're happy with having to shell out $40 in order to customize your OS, then great. That wasn't my argument.

4) "There is a much simpler way to set this up in Vista & Win 7 and in the run box just type in "netplwiz" this will bring up a user account windows and you choose what user you want to login, uncheck "Users must enter Username...." and it will ask you to put in the pass for that account and then you restart and it will log right in for you."

So, let me get this straight. In Windows, you need to go to Google for one thing, to discover the name of the command, and then have to type it in? This, instead of using a GUI tool to accomplish the job? Doesn't this kind of sound like the same complaint people have against Linux?

Oh, and I'd be careful about enabling auto-login in Windows, as I've known people and have had my own PCs screw up because of it. Hence the reason I felt compelled to write an entire article about it.

5) "I disagree here as well. I can TS a Win problem and recover files no problem"

You know why? Because you've been using Windows all your life. And trust me, not all issues are going to be easier to fix in Windows than Linux, nor will hardly any of them not require you to hit up a search engine.

"what I am saying is that you need the knowledge to do it and in Linux you need much more then you do in Win to fix the problems you describe. "

This, sir, is short-sighted. You've used Windows all your life, as opposed to Linux for what? An afternoon at best? Of -course- you're going to consider one easier to fix than the other.

Christ, I think I need to stop... I just don't have the ambition to continue debating when I find it to be about as pointless as using a Mack truck to get groceries.

deadrats: As much as you love shilling Windows, you're never going to convince me that Linux is a shit OS, so please stop trying. I love it, it's perfect for me, and I don't care about the niggles I have to deal with. I have to deal with just as many in Windows, let me assure you.

Viva la Linux and all that.

 

[TheCrimsonStar]

Every OS has their cons and pros, it's all a matter of opinion. Rob was simply stating his opinions on both the OS's. No need to get so harsh.

Viva la Linux and all that.

I lol'd at this.

 

[Brett Thomas]

I don't understand why this thread was revived 10 months later. Yes, it's before my time, but I did read it and didn't think anything in it deserved an opinion this far into it.
...
For a lot more reasons than what a reply box would allow me to point out, both operating systems suck as much as they are great. And it's possibly because of this that I do get a bit sick and tired of all the back and forth that follows when someone decides to point out the flaws in one of them.

+1.

Marfig, kudos to a great post.

 

[Kayden]

deadrats and Kayden: Have either of you actually read the article? You're both complaining about some things I didn't even mention, or at least misconstruing them. It's as though you both read the heading titles and nothing else. For the sake of time and due to a total lack of desire, I'm making this response as quick as possible.

Yes Rob I did read it but did you read what you put in the title?

10 Things Linux Does Better Than Windows

I think Linux can be a good OS but what you fail to see is my opinion that Win is closed and any Linux GUI is not. Your making your points about this OS that the COMMUNITY changes not a Corporation, therefore a majority of these things you point out are changes that people wanted to have because Win was so limiting. I'll explain with your rebuttals.

1) File system IDs are universal; it'd take no effort on Microsoft's part to make its partitioner / disk manager show the real file system name rather than just "Unknown". This has nothing to do with Microsoft having to support something else; it's a read-only process, and useful for those who run multiple OSes. Oh, but it is great at one thing: making sure you can never have a perfect partition layout when using multiple OSes. Oh, how it does love creating random 1MB non-partitions, even inside the extended space I tried to dedicate to Linux:

Oh, and on a normal day, the NTFS partition would actually show how much space is used, except due to NTFS being such a ridiculous FS, it loves passing poor-shutdown flags to the drive even when it is in fact shut down properly.

Here you point out Microsoft can make these changes but they don't want to nor does Apple with running OSX on anything other then their hardware, it's just the name of the game. Again I point out Linux is trying to fit in with Win and again it will do things to make it easier to use both, Microsoft doesn't need to so it wont put that in there. I AGREE they should but they wont until Linux becomes a dominant force and they start to incorporate as a desktop OS on a large portion of machines. That way Microsoft can say "oh you want to run Linux too here we made it possible to manage it in Win!" They will try to sound sanctimonious in providing the option but only when they are under the gun plain and simple.

2) Microsoft's activation scheme is the reason I crack all of my OSes at the first sign of an issue. I once got screwed over when I planned to get a good night of benchmarking in late one night. Was locked out of the OS (Vista), and Microsoft's call center was closed. I made sure I never ran into that problem ever again.

I agree it is BS but it's also a response to piracy, granted not a very good one because it screws the legit customer over. I feel the same way about DRM for games but that isn't going to stop them from trying either. I crack my OS and games for the same reasons because it's stupid to hurt the legit customer even though I am one.

3) This article wasn't about third-party solutions. Of course you can purchase third-party software to accomplish something the OS doesn't do... that's a given, and it's the reason millions of pieces of software exist, free and commercial. I am talking about out-of-box solutions. If you're happy with having to shell out $40 in order to customize your OS, then great. That wasn't my argument.

It may not have been your argument but it is that, because the community changes what is in the Linux GUI so the only solution for people who use Win is third party. Thus in a way they are the Linux community because they saw something they didn't like and put an effort into fixing it because Microsoft wont make those changes themselves.

It is a pain that you have to pay for it as well but to make these programs they have to jump through Microsoft's hoops to get them to market, thus we need to pay for it, the same can not be said for Linux. Any changes are made by people with knowledge in Linux and it's done for free but you are saying that free is better because Linux is better out of the box. That's the point your making with that statement, now I am not trying to twist what you said but you can not convince me that Linux is better out of the box because there is no box you do not pay for it. When you do have to pay for it the landscape will change on how you get your updates, your changes and etc.

The point I am trying to make with what your saying is Linux is free, it's free to make changes the community wants and they ask for nothing in return that being money. However when you want a change on something that is in a closed system you need to pay for it because there is no community to make those changes for free, the same goes for OSX.

I agree it is better to have community involvement to make those changes instead of just one company with they say so but it works because they are successful in this regard.

4) "There is a much simpler way to set this up in Vista & Win 7 and in the run box just type in "netplwiz" this will bring up a user account windows and you choose what user you want to login, uncheck "Users must enter Username...." and it will ask you to put in the pass for that account and then you restart and it will log right in for you."

So, let me get this straight. In Windows, you need to go to Google for one thing, to discover the name of the command, and then have to type it in? This, instead of using a GUI tool to accomplish the job? Doesn't this kind of sound like the same complaint people have against Linux?

Oh, and I'd be careful about enabling auto-login in Windows, as I've known people and have had my own PCs screw up because of it. Hence the reason I felt compelled to write an entire article about it.

Any time you have to look something up is a pain in the ass for most people, with any OS. This wasn't the point I was trying to rebuttal, I was just saying that is easy to do when you have multiple users. Hell a GUI can hide things as well and even if it were in there people would still need to probably look it up.

Along this note

"For something that should be absolutely simple, sending someone to a search engine for a solution is a little ridiculous. To get this done in GNOME, you simply go to the System menu, then Administration and finally select Login Screen. There, the options are straight-forward. For KDE, you must go to the System Settings panel, and select Login Manager under the Advanced tab. Both solutions between GNOME and KDE are simple, and don't require a Google search to handle."

This is simple for advanced users, not for average Joe and I know this for a FACT. I worked techsupport for many years for an ISP and just getting people to around in OSX, Vista or XP was the biggest problem I had to deal with because going anywhere for a system setting that is beyond the norm wasn't easy for average Joe because they almost always second guess me or say they didn't want to do it. The only way many of them would do it with me was when they were told it would cost the $30+ to send some one out to do it for them.

The vast majority of computer users are not comfortable with going beyond thier comfort zone and we are the minority that does not mind it. This is the problem with people with ANY OS, you will always have to look something up because you may not know where it is. I do not have a problem with and I do not have a problem doing it for Linux, Win or OSX if I have to. It is just a fact you will have to look things up to understand what you want when you want it but in Linux it can be a more daunting task because it requires command line a majority of the time to fix, unlike in OSX or Win. This for me isn't a problem for me but average Joe will never put up with it for long and that's why MS went to a GUI in the first place, because Apple had one and they were losing market share because of it.

5) "I disagree here as well. I can TS a Win problem and recover files no problem"

You know why? Because you've been using Windows all your life. And trust me, not all issues are going to be easier to fix in Windows than Linux, nor will hardly any of them not require you to hit up a search engine.

"what I am saying is that you need the knowledge to do it and in Linux you need much more then you do in Win to fix the problems you describe. "

This, sir, is short-sighted. You've used Windows all your life, as opposed to Linux for what? An afternoon at best? Of -course- you're going to consider one easier to fix than the other.

You know what your right, I do know Win better than I know Linux and thus it is easier to fix to ME. I however do not agree that it is easier to get your files back on Linux OS, now that isn't because I know Win better so lets get that out of the way. It is because when you consider the amount of knowledge needed to get your Linux working vs Win it is so much more in comparison, it's like Linux a 100lb and Win is 60lb. They are both going to require some lifting to get it fixed but Win isn't nearly as heavy to accomplish your goal.

This goes back to the free point I made earlier, Linux community has a much more generous group then Win. Now even though the MSDN or technet might not always help with major problems it does help with what average Joe might run into. The only reason it may not is because they have some sort of malware, virus or alt program interfering with the solution which would require a more knowledgeable person to look into.

The point here is that I am willing your willing but the majority is not willing to learn. I still look somethings up from time to time to fix a problem in Win just like you do, but I know I would have to do it a lot in more in Linux until I get to the point you are at, but even now I know you still look things up to fix a problem. This isn't to say you aren't knowledgeable it's just we should all learn that it's okay to not know everything and we all need help from time to time but that will not happen as long as the majority see it as a weakness.

Christ, I think I need to stop... I just don't have the ambition to continue debating when I find it to be about as pointless as using a Mack truck to get groceries.

deadrats: As much as you love shilling Windows, you're never going to convince me that Linux is a shit OS, so please stop trying. I love it, it's perfect for me, and I don't care about the niggles I have to deal with. I have to deal with just as many in Windows, let me assure you.

Viva la Linux and all that.

The final point I am going to make here Rob is that your looking at this from the standpoint of a community and not a business. When you put those against each other the community will always win out over a business, because communities can make open minded decisions where businesses make decisions based on what will make them the most money. There are both pros and cons to every OS and Linux is no different but you don't pay for Linux so it will be more flexible but it isn't to say that Win is rigid and you don't have options to change it. This is the point I am trying to make, Win can be changed and just because it costs money to do it is a bummer but it doesn't negate the fact your points are based on a community structure and not business.

Rob I hope this helps you see my point of view on your comments and my position on Linux but since you decided to stop here so will I.



Honestly deadrats don't get me wrong you have your own reasons to prefer Win over Linux and some I agree with, but your saying Rob is wrong for going to something he enjoys and that is the wrong attitude to have dude. A Mac user will fight you on the virtues of having OSX over Win as well, but Rob is just saying what he likes with Linux over Win not that Linux is the better OS out there. Also your point about a server OS, I guess we shouldn't use Win 7 because it was built off of Win 2000 because that was a server OS. I do not like where most of this hostility is coming from tbh and being a Win user myself I find it disrespectful to dislike someone's option because they prefer over what you like.

-End of Line-

 

[Kayden]

@marfig great post dude.

 

[deadrats]

1) File system IDs are universal; it'd take no effort on Microsoft's part to make its partitioner / disk manager show the real file system name rather than just "Unknown".

you seem to either not understand, or not care, that windows is a proprietary OS that is SOLD as a way of making a profit for microsoft and generating a return for m$ investors. it is ridiculous to the extreme to expect a for profit company to do anything to it's OS that a) legitimizes a competing product and b) adds potential support issues and associated costs to it's support of their OS.

you need to be fair about this, every feature that windows has must be supported by microsoft, if microsoft were to add support for a file system coded by independent programmers not under it's control it, even in something as simple as reading a string that holds a fs ID, it would be opening itself up to calls from all sorts of clowns that expect microsoft to fix a problem with a fs that microsoft had no hand in coding.

deadrats: Comments like "but again the reason linux has so many fs choices is because they all suck." only go to show how little you know about the subject or are willing to defend Windows by saying whatever's necessary.

allow me to give you a non-comp sci example: when einstein first proposed his theories the nazis propaganda machine released a paper called "100 scientists against albert einstein", in which they laid out arguments for why einstein's theories were wrong.

you know what einstein replied? "if i were wrong, one would have been enough".

there's a reason why microsoft never moved past ntfs, aside from the above mentioned support issues, the one fs works just fine.

with linux you have a case of "too many cooks in the kitchen", you have one fs that works fine, then someone decides they want journaling, then someone decides that he can do it better (how funny is it that one of the clowns is now in jail for murder?) and the process never ends.

and then you have this reality, if linux's file systems were so great, microsoft would have "stolen" the code and released it as their own fs or they could have just "abused" the lgpl and used ufs.

This article wasn't about third-party solutions. Of course you can purchase third-party software to accomplish something the OS doesn't do... that's a given, and it's the reason millions of pieces of software exist, free and commercial. I am talking about out-of-box solutions. If you're happy with having to shell out $40 in order to customize your OS, then great. That wasn't my argument

.

no, your argument is nonsensical because all of linux is "3rd party software", there is no single one entity responsible for the whole thing, even if you have groups that distribute collections of software under a common brand.

all linus did was create a kernel, everything else is the result of the work of "3rd parties", it's retarded beyond belief to dismiss any 3rd party utility that extends windows functionality yet simultaneously contrast that with capabilities of an OS that is nothing more than a collection of 3rd party software.

you are obviously a reasonably adapt computer user but you seem to have the FOSS blinders on way too tight, you like linsux, fine, so be it, but if you're going to publish article touting the benefits you perceive don't get upset when people point out that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

it's nothing personal, it's just your beliefs are flat out wrong, and the ultimate proof is that a person with a master's in comp sci can get a job with m$ as a junior programmer making 125k/year and a phd can get a job as a senior programmer at 250k.year, while a "programmer" that writes FOSS can make hundreds and hundreds of loose change per year living off donations.

call me old fashioned but i would think that if one were a talented programmer he/she would be making serious cash and not giving their work away for free and hoping someone will feel sorry enough for them so that they can get a small donation to buy a sandwich with.

This, sir, is short-sighted. You've used Windows all your life, as opposed to Linux for what? An afternoon at best? Of -course- you're going to consider one easier to fix than the other.

actually i have already mentioned, i received certification from pace university as a unix system admin; i was trained on sco, bsd, redhat and suse, i've built my own distro from scratch using a vanilla kernel and debian tools, i have remastered tons of distros, including working on a redhat remaster for a while and i was working on an sse optimized kernel for a while; you might be surprised how much i know about *nix and i can tell you linux is the OS equivalent of a 3rd world country: it has piss poor water, little sanitation, rampant corruption and people are starving; it blows, it's a half assed implementation of a 40 year old framework that should have been taken out and shot a long time ago.

i half expect someone to one day say "gotcha, linux has been an extended april fool's day joke all along, sorry if anyone actually believed we were serious."

i do wonder, if you love linux so much why not stop being a poser and move onto a real *nix, like netbsd or openbsd or AIX?

might as well show the world how hard core you really are; linux is like the guy that wants to pretend he's a bad ass cage fighter so he joins a local dojo were he point fights while wearing pads on his hands, feet and chest.

 

[deadrats]

I don't understand why this thread was revived 10 months later. Yes, it's before my time, but I did read it and didn't think anything in it deserved an opinion this far into it.

i'll explain it to you; rob wrote an article about audio under linux (it deals with nvidia, hdmi, intel and a half assed OS) and in the comments section rob said that he was thinking about posting an article about 10 things windows does better than windows (or something along those lines); a few days later i saw in the "latest forum posts" section an article by this title and thought it was the article rob promised.

i read it, went to the comments section and saw "kayden's" comment and since it has a recent date assumed that it was a recent article, and thus added my 200 hundred dollars worth (my comments were worth more than the typical 2 cents).

rob has an ego where he takes any criticism or comment disagreeing with him personally and feels the need to respond (and i respect that) and thus here we are.

 

[deadrats]

Honestly deadrats don't get me wrong you have your own reasons to prefer Win over Linux and some I agree with, but your saying Rob is wrong for going to something he enjoys and that is the wrong attitude to have dude. A Mac user will fight you on the virtues of having OSX over Win as well, but Rob is just saying what he likes with Linux over Win not that Linux is the better OS out there. Also your point about a server OS, I guess we shouldn't use Win 7 because it was built off of Win 2000 because that was a server OS. I do not like where most of this hostility is coming from tbh and being a Win user myself I find it disrespectful to dislike someone's option because they prefer over what you like.

woah, i'm not being hostile, i'm an imitation new yorker, this is the way i come off, woah, oh boy, why don't you have me from a tree or something; what do you want me to come off as, some kind of paradiddle, that wasn't very nice, it wasn't nice at all, oh my.

as for win 2k, it was not a server OS, it used the NT kernel which originally saw life in a server OS, but 2k was a business oriented OS; m$ then added and removed features to make the server versions, xp built on 2k, vista is significantly different from xp in many ways and m$ did make a server version and win 7 is based on vista.

win 7 desktop is not however a server OS nor is it based on one, linux is a "modern" implementation of a 40 year old main frame OS, it's never lost it's big iron roots and it's proud of that fact.

 

[marfig]

i do wonder, if you love linux so much why not stop being a poser and move onto a real *nix, like netbsd or openbsd or AIX?

Wow! Talk about being caught by your own big mouth.

You say you have several Unix certifications from Pace University (and btw, of those you mentioned only one is actually Unix) and you don't even know that Unix is not Linux and Linux is not Unix? All those certifications and they didn't teach you the meaning on "Unix-like"? All that experience and you have yet to realize that liking Linux is not liking Unix?

Maybe you should go check those credentials again. Either Pace University sucks, or you haven't been paying attention and you only think you got those certificates. I'm sorry for being so blunt, but you did start the "poser" thing; now didn't you? And the things you say and your so-called credentials (that no one asked for, btw)... they just don't match. Your appeal to authority attempt was as such one big fail! Which does bring us back to posers...

i'll explain it to you [...]

Son, the only thing you could try and explain to me is what the hell do you think you are doing? Do you think trying to prove whatever point you are trying to prove justifies the sad spectacle you are making of yourself?

The things you said in just two posts on this thread have basically ruined any chance of anyone giving a damn about what you have to say or not on this or any other matter. You are just a nuisance now I'm hoping it disappears if I scratch enough.

Just buckle up and take a few days off. Chances are when you get back this will all be forgotten and you will have a second chance at being taken seriously. But as it is right now... naaah.

 

[Rob Williams]

I think Linux can be a good OS but what you fail to see is my opinion that Win is closed and any Linux GUI is not. Your making your points about this OS that the COMMUNITY changes not a Corporation, therefore a majority of these things you point out are changes that people wanted to have because Win was so limiting.

This article wasn't about closed vs. open, proprietary vs. non-proprietary, or free vs. commercial; the article is called "10 Things Linux Does Better Than Windows", and that's just what the article covers.

There's really no possible way on earth I could state that any more clearly.

rob has an ego where he takes any criticism or comment disagreeing with him personally and feels the need to respond (and i respect that) and thus here we are.

You've insulted me and put words into my mouth on too many occasions... I'm done responding to you. I usually like to defend myself when people discredit something I've written, but any sensible person should be able to read your rants and make up their own minds.

As for this article, I still stand by all ten choices I made 100%. I don't care who disagrees with any of them; you are more than welcome to. I've already stated my case.

 

[Kayden]

This article wasn't about closed vs. open, proprietary vs. non-proprietary, or free vs. commercial; the article is called "10 Things Linux Does Better Than Windows", and that's just what the article covers.

There's really no possible way on earth I could state that any more clearly

Your right Rob I did look at more in depth then it needs be because I feel that some of the points you made were reaction not proactive, thus they saw something they didn't like in Win and made that change in Linux. Therefore my point is has always been that 3rd party apps do some of the same things in Win but because they aren't free you dismiss them because it didn't come with the OS out of the box. That isn't fair because there is no other way to change what or how Win operates, with it being a closed model.

I am just pointing out there are ways around the cons you point out in Win and the login thing was just wrong because you don't see it as convenient as it is in Linux GUI.

That's my point and if you can't see it I am sorry I couldn't get you see it. I know went deeper then I should have but it's just who I am so for the sake of just letting go, I will. I can't change certain things and even though I made my points you still can't see them and it isn't any ones fault, it's happened before to people and it will happen again. Cest la vie.