Jump to content

WINDOWS or LINUX


sheiksoft

Which operating system is the BEST...?  

297 members have voted

  1. 1. Which operating system is the BEST...?

    • Windows
      172
    • Linux
      60


Recommended Posts

I generally hate these threads. They are usually flame bait :)

But for what it's worth...

I'm going to aassume you are a home computer user who is comfortable with their current OS (likely Windows). The question is, doyou have a reason to change? If you can do everything you want to, why would you change? Linux has a far more complex shell, anyway, and odds are, unless you are totally disenfranchised with Windows, you`ll end up going back.

If`you`d like to try Linux for the free, opensource goodness that comes with it, I`d recommend the Ubuntu Live CD, or the current Knoppix Live CD. Granted, I`ve not had a chance to try the current Knoppix, but the ubuntu live CD includes a Windows Autorun that will allow you to install several GPL`d applications, so you can get a preview of teh preview, so to speak. If you like it, you can boot with the CD, and dabble a bit. It also has fantastic update managment and a great support community.

Personally, I maintain an Ubuntu installation, but I use windows far more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


sheiksoft you asked to totally different questiong :lol: the topic says which is the most user friendly os and the poll says which is th best os :P well im pretty sure we all know what the most user friendly OS is... but the BEST one? thats a tough call, i voted for windows cuz for about the past 3 years ive been messing around with linux on and off and have NEVER been 100% successful/satisfied with the results.....

i have tried:

Redhat 7&8- they ran too slow for me...

Fedora Core 3- there were a few things i didnt like about it, i forget what though...

Gentoo (multiple times)- the (full) installation process is wayyy too long, ive tried the quick install and still that takes really long, since you have to emerge your Desktop Manager and compile it (takes EXTREMELY long), Open Office and other things which take a long time... i think ive been trying to install it since Gentoo 2003.1 to this day i have never had a 100% successful installation. the farthest ive gotten was with 2005.0 ive gotten everything to install correctly (except with grub screwing me up....) and no matter what i do i cant get any Desktop Manager to compile correctly. Ive tried KDE, GNOME, IceWM and FluxBox and all of them will give me an error at some point. Ive tried atleast 2 versions of KDE (the one included in the emerge database in gentoo which i belive is 3.2 and ive tried using Konstruct which is KDEs version of emerge/appget or whatever its called... sometimes Konstruct will give me errors dealing with the file integrity [md5 errors or the like] and other times it'll compile around 25 out of 70 packages flawlessly then it'll break on 26 and theres nothing i can do about it)

Mandrake 9.2 Personal- didnt like it, very limited, didnt include anything for development/compiling of d/led packages

Mandrake 10 PowerPack-so far ive liked this the best. it has an easy install, is easily configured and stuff but the one main thing that turned me away from it was that u need to pay for the updates :}

Debian 3- the installation was just like gentoo it was all console based and was a pain in the butt

LibraNet 2.something (whatever the free version is, the newest old one)- this was pretty good but APTGET or whatever its called wouldnt work when i wanted to update/download something. i would check all of the 14 or so depositories it had listed (source and DEB packages) and it says it couldnt find certain things even though they were listed in the update list when i queried the server! ex. i tried to upgrade to Kernel-2.6.x and it says its not found when it had all the stuff for it listed!

SuSE 8 or 9- tried it awhile ago, cant remember what i didnt liek about it....

i think linux is the best for security and stableness, but you need to really know what your doing! another good thing is around 80%+ of the software/actual Distros are free

on the other hand Windows is really good but is extremely expensive for the Server OSes and greater. Windows is great for computer unsavy person, especially XP, it pretty much tells you how to do everything.. (click here to see newly installed programs! etc...) i feel that MS is too money hungry....

IMHO i like XP Pro better then any Distro of Linux so far. its alot easier to use, and gives me no where near as many problems as linux does. plus i like tweaking windows and creating a "personalized" install cd and all that good stuff. AFAIK you cant do that with linux... :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The userfriendliness is different from person to person, someone finds it userfriendly to have only important settings available per default, others want it to have fully costumizable, without patching, without editing Registry, and the second point is the main reason I use Linux, 100% costumizablity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The userfriendliness is different from person to person, someone finds it userfriendly to have only important settings available per default, others want it to have fully costumizable, without patching, without editing Registry, and the second point is the main reason I use Linux, 100% costumizablity.

For this post, when I refer to linux, I'm refering to distributions, not the kernel.

The arguement that linux is better because there is no registry editing is weird to me... Sure, there is no configuration manager called "regedit", and the configuration files aren't in a central database, but there is at least 1 configuration manager that functions very much like regedit. I also don't see how it's easier to track hundreds of files located in one monolithic directory. I hate the registry for it's 'eggs in one basket' functionality, but surely a simpler method could be concocted (ironically, I'd be just as happy with user-based INI-like files that stored themselves in directories that changed depending on the user, sort of like a full-on database filesystem, heh).

I also recognize how a Linux Distribution can be fully customizable, as long as you are exclusively using GPL or LGPL software. But adding or editing this stuff is patching it, no? The kernel has hundreds of patches which add features or fix security flaws on occasion, and I've been lambasted by Linux support groups for not staying on top of updates, which enhance stability and security.

I stay on top of updates now, thanks to the included update manager that Ubuntu uses (Ièm sure others include one, but Ièm not ashamed to admit my bias towards Ubuntu). It functions like Windows Update, warning me that there are as many as 15-30 apps each day that require some kind of updating. Of course, this depends on how you have it installed; If itès not a package that is managed by the package manager, then you are out of luck (this would be akin to unzipping and running an application on Windows, without using an installer that works with Add or Remove Programs).

I`d like to again address the idea that linux requires almost no pathcihg. In fact, one of it`s strengths is in the patches available. By having many frequent updates, Linux has become strong and more compatible than windows in many respects. With the free development tools available to it, it`s actually helped windows and Linux users alike. So while on a usability scale, I`d say it`s about the same, I`d say linux can be better then windows, technologically.

If you decide to try linux, remember that it`s just starting to get into desktop terroitory, and use it as such. Ask user groups for advice on migrating, and put an effort into it - If you don`t you`re likely to give up too soon.

Sorry... Ièm just playing devils advocate today :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"WINDOWS or LINUX, Which is the most user friendly OS...?"

"Which operating system is the BEST...?"

These are two questions that don't need the have the same answer. User friendlyness: Windows, the best: depends on intended use, for desktop I'd say BeOS, since this choice is not available I vote for Linux.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bah.... why does someone always use the argument that there are only viruses written for Windows? It's the case because it's the biggest. Who would want to disrupt the tiny market share who use Linux when they could take out over 90% of computer users?

The bigger the target, the more attacks you'll see on it. Take a look at what's happening to Firefox and you'll get what'll happen to Linux if it gets to be as mainstream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bah.... why does someone always use the argument that there are only viruses written for Windows? It's the case because it's the biggest. Who would want to disrupt the tiny market share who use Linux when they could take out over 90% of computer users?

The bigger the target, the more attacks you'll see on it. Take a look at what's happening to Firefox and you'll get what'll happen to Linux if it gets to be as mainstream.

very true, but also linux has most of its system files and stuff inaccessabile it you arent root. thats also why there are very few trojan horses written for linux than for windows, most of the time a trojan plants itself in the system os directory or sumthin liek that, with linux all of that stuff is protected since normal users login under "user" privlages, almost any hardcore linux user (not me.... :lol: ) will suggest that you NEVER use Root as you daily user account, and this is one of the reasons why...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats for damned sure, NEVER use your Root account for daily usage, only use it for emergencies and maintenance purposes only.

Security wise, its all up to the person to make sure the OS is secure, both Windows and Linux are secure, its only the people who don't make it secure are the ones who complain !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with those who have noted that "User Friendly" is a subjective term. It depends on your needs and abilities. I would just like to make a comment about their respective filesystems.

The *NIX filesystem is so much easier to work with because there is no concept of "drive letter" in the fs path. Drives are "mounted" or attached to mount points (folders) and the entire drive just appears as a subfolder of mount point. This eliminates all of the "what drive is it on" headaches common to dos and windows.

"Drive letters" are an abomination and one of the most egregious examples of backwards compatibility, as they can be traced all the way back to CP/M, the precursor to dos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The *NIX filesystem is so much easier to work with because there is no concept of "drive letter" in the fs path. Drives are "mounted" or attached to mount points (folders) and the entire drive just appears as a subfolder of mount point. This eliminates all of the "what drive is it on" headaches common to dos and windows.

"Drive letters" are an abomination and one of the most egregious examples of backwards compatibility, as they can be traced all the way back to CP/M, the precursor to dos.

I prefer the "drive letter" way. Call me "old fashion" but I do. I can find my way around on a windows-based system as well as a *nix-based system.

I'd like Windows to have a journalised file system, such as ReiserFS4. I guess WinFS will be something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...