You know, you are both wrong. Why would anybody use linux if the only advantage was to not have viruses - or if it didn't have even that.
Seriously, if you can't understand how linux works, why are you expecting others to understand _you_.
I suppose you haven't tried Ubuntu... it runs on EVERYTHING. If you had a toaster with a CPU in it, it'd run on it.
What Linux forgot to say is that they failed (like Apple) to hear the call of IBM to establish the "standard" for computers, dont get me wrong, i luff my Ubuntu and my beloved 4nd love of my life, SUSE <3. But to be realistic not a lot of users can handle Linux and/or can afford to lose a lot of apps and games when moving to Linux, and thats why we have Virtual PC's softwares
incorrect ubuntu doesn't run on everything you need at least a P6 x86 processor to run in eg Pentium Pro, So you can't run ubuntu on a Pentium MMX or older.
And since you said "everything" it also can't run on Alpha, MIPs, PowerPC (officially it can't), IA64 (offically it can't), SPARC.
I could go on but I think you get the point hopefully
Linux is still too complicated for the average user. You're 100% correct about it being faster and more customizable, but the average non gamer does not want more customizable, they want simple and ***** proof, two things which Linux does not have a reputation for.
This is PR bullshit, the Linux community had a chance in the 1990s and early 2000s to come up with something, and they didn't. So now they're in a bed of their own making. What's wrong with just saying, "we run the world's infrastructure, and that speaks for itself" rather than this crap about kicking a puppy and all this other BS, then making the "except for desktop" caveat.
I would love to see research data on this impregnable Linux. Finding data to your contrary is simple. So far you have only said you disagree with people, but haven't shown any reasons to why we should listen to you.
I have used Windows for 10 years and have been virus free without ever using an antivirus program (doing checks every month or so to be sure).
LOL spot on mate
I was sooo tempted to put up a 50-point list on why Linux is a better OS than Mac. or Windows. However, I'm to busy writing open-source code right now, so I'll let this list do the talking.
Just don't mind point 34, it's rather stupid I think...
Some useful and some 'not so logical' comments in this thread makes an interesting reading. Anyway, my contribution to this BS (as gwail has rightfully said) about linux being 'superior' in anyway is, Linux (and other Nix) based OS are more susceptible/vulnerable than Windows (which is interesting in itself), but it has been a fact for some years now. Not to mention the TCO of any Nix based system. Even when I was in IT, I did ran a Server on Linux but just for the sake of running it on Linux (as someone else has said ); but that machine never did anything useful (as it was almost EOL server anyway). I have tried to find older Secunia reports about detailed vulnerabilities of each plateform but I am unable to find, but interestingly this and this link at least give you some ideas.
I am firm believer no matter which OS you use, they are all vulnerable and will remain as such, only defense a user can have is 'making the right choices while configuring your machine' and careful how you use it/what you put on it etc.
ref: Linux is just as virus prone as Windows and Mac OS
Sorry that is just wrong. And I will explain why:
Windows uses a black list system. The anti-virus software on Windows is allways checking the digital signatures of files in your windows box and looking for files that are known to be malware. There is a delay between the release of malware and it's identification as malware by the virus checkers. And even then some will never be identified. So in theory, and this is born out in practice also, a blacklist system is allways going to allow some virus's through.
Linux uses a white list system. It is designed so that all your software is downloaded from a secure software repository, and that all the software is known to be free of malware. So you allready have a good guarantee of being malware free. In addition, because all the software is coming from a known location, it is trivial to update software, in fact all the software on the linux box is under the control of the operating system and can be updated should a bug or vulnerability be discovered.
The process of installing software from a repository rather than the windows more promiscous haphazard approach makes it harder for virus's and malware to take hold. Thus there are no known linux virus's in the wild.
As other posters have noted however, one of the areas where windows is excells is with the rich game ecosystem as well as certain specialist software packages.
But as far as malware is concerned Linux is better by design.
Most of the negative comments here about linux obviously come from people who either understood and chose to ignore, or did not understand the facts of the post. The post says "all except desktop computing". Linux is on TVs DVb receivers media players, phones, servers, etc. These are equipment that get things done. Computing is increasingly cloud based. In the near future you will not be running applications from your desktop, but from your browser. Tell me then who will buy an OS if all you need is a browser? And its wrong to say that linux is not good for games. There is justt no incentives to create linux compartible games. Serious Games are expensive to create and most people do it for the money. Again you can find serious games for Mac. Mac is unix based just like linux, so why cant linux play games? technically no reason! For those of you who want to play games on PC, please continue using windows, for those of us who get things done, we will continue using linux. Because we need to run databases for your accounts and the money you give us for games securely, we must use linux, because we know you will need somewhere to gloat about your games, we provide you with techspot webservers, running on linux!
No we get it. The whole argument was stupid, that's what we're commenting about. Its like saying that the Clippers are the best NBA team in Los Angeles, if you don't count the Lakers.
If you're going to make ANY kind of statement about market dominance, or competition, you have to look at the whole picture, not just the selected areas where you happen to lead.
Its PR bullshit, designed to get this guy headlines. And frankly, as stupid as it sounds, Linux is jumping on its own bandwagon, only after a bunch of large corporations, Google, HP, took Linux and released an OS based on it that has become successful, and so the Linux Foundation pipes up and triumphantly says "see!"
The whole problem all along has been that Linux has been fragmented and has not had the support of any major company behind it. People have been saying for decades that if Linux is supported by major companies it will take off. And so it has come to pass. Had it not been for Google, Linux would remain a behind the scenes OS, running our world, but hardly used by anyone.
And frankly, I always thought that Linux users were above this fanboy BS. I guess they don't want to feel left out, so they have to jump into this already crowded ring.
Linux is a great OS for techies, and we're all grateful that its the backbone of the internet. So be happy with that.
You are missing the point. I never said everybody would automatically get viruses if they used Windows (because I haven't either). I don't expect you to listen to me either. That's your choice.
And if I start explaining as to why exactly is linux so much more "impgregnable" it would take me like two comment pages to explain it all (since your knowledge about linux seems to be nonexistant).
Basically it all boils down to the fact that "linux" (the kernel, the core of the operating system) is actively developed by more than 5000 people every day. Since it's open source _anybody_ can send patches to the kernel maintainers and fix bugs/security holes. Just because of this not many people even have enough strength to even _try_ to find a security hole from it. And even if one was to be found (sure, it happens) it will be fixed in a matter of hours. The same form (in its own scale) is used with every single software available for linux. That is why linux is so safe and you don't normally need an antivirus or firewall (the latter can be useful, though).
I don't know then if you even believe me on this or whether this is enough for you to believe but this is just a fact. If linux was as widely used as Windows is now, then sure, there would indeed be more security risks to be found with it but there would still be _a lot_ less than with Windows - and they would also be fixed much faster.
Naturally, no operating system is completely "impregnable". If the user decides to run a script as admin/root that deletes all his files then that's of course his problem and there's not a single thing _any_ OS can do about it. Simple as that.
I mainly use linux because it's faster and there's so much customizability. Frankly, I would not want to use "noob distros" such as Ubuntu and Suse because they are way too simple and bloated for me. This is obviously where our oppinions about OSes cross so arguing about it would be a complete waste of time (but you don't really seem to be that stupid, for that matter). And I guess I still don't expect you to believe me anyway.
But if you got any more questions (like clarifications or whatever), I'll be more than glad to respond. You seem like a nice guy .
Well that's not entirely accurate. Many "nerds" such as me would be using it nontheless. But I frankly believe that no matter how big companies there were to adopt linux (such as Google, IBM or HP) it would still take a _very_ long time for linux to become as widely used as Windows.
The nature of the OS is that it's supposed to be free. This is also bad for a lot of reasons because not a lot of companies want to hand out their product for _free_. And even if they did create a commercial linux distribution they would still have to release its source code for the public - for free - because of the GPL license.
So, I'd say linux kinda works "around" the market while mainly Windows works _within_ it.
Hey, don't generalize . Some people just don't have any other good ways of doing some argumentating. And they get frustrated by people saying how linux "sucks".
99% of the people here confuse Linux with Ubuntu which is only for desktop use. When it comes to everything else linux is a much better than windows. Fast, reliable and safe. (i use windows 7 for my desktops and laptops but for servers linux is much better)
I've read all the comments here and most of them are so funny because they are clearly written by people who only use computers for games. Bashing the desktop version even though they admitted that windows has the advantage there does not make you look smarter.
I agree, some are playable, while others are impossible - thats without taking into consideration that those results could be very different depending on the GPU in use, and whether its being run natively or played through an emulator like Wine for example.
Gaming will be non-existant until Linux starts gaining shares in the desktop market - to do that it needs to be capable of gaming. So its a lose lose from the off in my opinion.
I use two OS', as a dual boot on my main PC. W7 Pro x64 covers gaming purposes, and everything else (I use it 90% of the time) is Linux (Debian 6, xfce DE).
Yes both OS' are capable of doing each others jobs, but from my experiences over the years Linux is a damn sight more stable doing them, not to mention faster.
Things are a little more even in my case though as my W7 runs off of a 256GB SSD, and the Linux a 500GB Hitachi mechanical disk (7200rpm), so I tend to find generally speaking performance is about equal in everything except heavy disk activity where the SSD trumps.
That said, Linux is ideal for entry level computers, and for occasional users - combined with a budget netbook, or lower spec PC, Linux gives a fast, stable and flexible solution that comes in more than ideal for web browsing, emailing and typing the occasional letter. The savings make the hardware cheaper as well.
For those without the requirement to game Linux makes serious sense - too often people forget this, and just dismiss Linux out of hand without realising the vast proportion of devices they handle on a daily basis that actually run some form of linux or another.
And that about sums up my point about the fact it can be useful to non-gaming computer users.
The pure and simple truth is occasional computer users couldn't care less whether it had Windows or Linux on it, they just need to know where to point and click to browse the web and collect their emails. Most of the people that come to see me to sort their computers couldn't even tell you what Windows is, most of the time they think its the computer itself, not the operating system - another term they have no understanding of. They understand the same thing when its £50-75 cheaper though, and thats where Linux comes up trumps against Windows.
Possibly, but I would imagine its fairly safe to assume that the desire to expand the knowledge of our planet, and its further solar system has spured on the developement of computer technologies capable of computing that information for us.
Gaming will have spured on specifications for desktop computers, in large part due to the specifications required to run games (first Crysis, took forever to get a GPU that could max it out for example), but it will have had absolutely no bearing on the scientific and research purposes advancing computing technology.
I'm sorry, but thats an arguement flawed at best - you could say the same as a MS certified tech as well. A bad Linux tech is no different to a bad MS tech - they'll both shaft you sideways.
Yes Linux requires specialised skills above and beyond that of Windows technologies, but its not like either could be removed and still have functioning IT infrastructure in anything other than the short term.
Also, to some degree the Cost of Ownership is offset against the salary of the Linux techs your employing. On a small scale (say 100 or less computers) you'd likely suffer, but once you start breaking 1000 plus computers the real life savings of no license fee's for all those computers, even coupled with the annual salaries of dedicated Linux support staff still allows for a profit.
Thats without considering the fact that computers built around the period of Windows 2000/XP would work absolutely fine with Linux utilising light DE's.
91.8% of the top 500 fastest supercomputers use Linux (as of Nov 2010.)
The honest truth of the matter is finding solid, reliable data on exact usage on the worlds servers is very hard to find. Generally only paid for Linux products are included in any results, and therefore it tends to lean around the 10-16% mark. However, the real results could be 4 or 5 times that amount, as most installs are done using free Linux OS builds, with Debian and CentOS being two very popular solutions.
I correctly setup server running Linux is considered to be safer than a correctly setup Windows Server. A server powered by linux is also considered to be more stable, reliable and will almost certainly suffer from less downtime than a Windows based server will over its lifetime.
Linux also runs on lighter servers consuming considerably less resources than its Windows counterparts as well - so in the case of more budget orientated servers it is a sensible solution.
If you want to read more I recommend you search on google - there is plenty of information available. Googling for Windows or Linux server should give you plenty of information alone.
I suggest you re-check what Ubuntu is really for, before making such a wild statment. Ubuntu is the 'buntu release of Linux, favouring Gnome as its DE (well not shortly!), and is available as a server release AND a desktop/netbook release.
Ubuntu is just one of many different distrubtions. Ironically besides being one of the most widely used distros for beginners, its also among the most buggy, being so cutting edge all the time.
Thoroughout this thread Ubuntu has been mentioned on many occasions - in fact I don't think I've read of another distro at all. In my experiences Ubuntu tends to be used by those newer to Linux (which is fine, we all gotta learn somewhere - I was the same!), but eventually most then move onto other distros, like in my case Debian/Fedora.
For a lot of people its hard to understand why some people would use Linux as an every day OS. Sure its not super polished, and it sometimes has issues, but Microsoft could hardly be seen as offering a stable OS either - they also have there fair share of issues.
For some (like me), they'll try Linux and never look back. I now use it 90% of the time as my primary OS. W7 sits as a dual boot purely for gaming and nothing else.
For others, they'll try it, the shoe won't fit and they'll never commit, or use it again. Thats fine, because it can't suit all people, but it can save everyone money given the time.
Ultimately whats important is to give your honest opinions based on your experiences, because peoples bad experiences (and good) can shape how the OS moves over time.. Slagging it off with no experience or understanding is rather fruitless though. To be honest those that know sod all kind of stand out like sore thumbs anyway.
Huh. This hobo OS vs Windows thing seems to be a hot topic still. Who knew!
I see you guys writing a lot about the speed of the hobo OS here. I don't need my OS to start 8 seconds faster. I have the patience to live that down. This ranting about kernels etc. Compiling, was it? Again, who cares? And don't take offense please, it's meant as a legitimate question. Of all the people who use computers today, how large a percent would get any benefit out of using hobo OS over Windows? I imagine... less than 1%. If that. I'm not gonna waste my SSD space on a hobo OS installation just to have something useless to fool around with behind Window's back. There's no point, hobo OS ain't that purty! *high five*
OK, there may be tons of hobo apps out there, but honestly, why should we care? The real stuff, the apps people use, that's all made for Windows. That stuff has proper support, backing, etc. Photoshop and the likes, that's what I'm talking about.
As for drivers on hobo OS... I pay attention to that stuff. I'm a gamer, see? And gamers use the latest drivers. Not last year's drivers. The latest drivers may melt our graphics cards, but we'll risk for a possible 1-3% performance edge, even if we don't need it.
Hobo OS can't hack it. It's always outdated. It'll never have the same support (of any kind, and on any level) as Windows as long as it's a free hobo OS developed by hobos, for hobos. And get this, my whole point is, that this sucks! It's a shame that it is this way, but that's just how it is. Why are people writing essays in here?
As stated earlier, This article is about Linux beating Windows in every other <strong>Aspect</strong>. We all know how important our Games are and the need for a Windows OS. But respectively there are more casual users on the Windows OS then Gamers and combined more then Linux users. Linux is a great OS and hate it for whatever ignorant reason you may have, just remember those precious sites you visit are most likely ran by a Linux Server OS. So be nice to it.
First of all, Linux is open source. So if anyone is so daring to complain, why cant you guys fix the issues.. The negative comments above just clearly shows how naive you guys are in linux and understanding the linux possibilities. Open source is the future and linux being the part of it has already proved its existence for very long time (do your homework to know it).
Wow, someone didn't get from his boyfriend.
Ubuntu rocks! I own a small computer repair shop in a small town and have offered Ubuntu as an option for people who are sick of their older slow machines but can't afford the upgrades to run bloated Windows.
So far nobody has run into any serious issues, I have 3 teens running Ubuntu on laptops, 4 people in their 40's running Ubuntu on their laptops and desktops and I just installed Ubuntu on a desktop as a secondary OS for someone in their 60's who is set in their ways and scared of the leap, and was worried that her Kindle wouldn't work (until I told her that was running a flavor of Linux as well). There have been numerous live CDs handed out but I am not sure if they have installed or not.
As for advertising Ubuntu I have 2 desktops that are free for public use running Ubuntu. These are mostly used by high school kids whose families can't afford a computer with internet at home, or have been grounded from their computer at home. I did have one lady who was using Skype to talk to her significant other overseas.
Some of the comments from the highschoolers include "this thing is faster than the computers at school (Macs) "you mean this isn't windows?" "I can actually do homework on this?"
The downside to Linux as we all know is games, while my 13 year old has found some fun games (like Mine Craft) he still uses a windows machine to connect to his Steam account.
Maybe I will start blogging the stories of my Ubuntu converts, but for now I will just stick to spreading the word that there is a better alternative to Windows.
That Other Computer Guy
Pretty much every person using a computer for occasional usage, limited to web browsing, collecting and sending emails, viewing pictures, videos and listening to songs, and using office applications to write letters or create spreadsheets can benefit from the right Linux OS.
Its not just because its cheaper, its because the hardware lasts longer, it functions much more reliably, its stable and dependable, and in most instances is considerably better protected from human error mistakes than a traditional Windows OS is.
And lets face it, the vast majority of those sort of people couldn't actually explain to you what Windows really is anyway - Nevermind how to tell it has it, and what version it is. So having Linux instead changes absolutely nothing, except for the huge reduction in price and the real option of keeping a computer for a decade without even replacing it... Factor in cost of ownership over that period and its not hard to see why its much better overall.
If you don't use Linux, open source software and have absolutely no interest in using them you don't need to.
Last time I checked Linux had considerable backing financially and in a supportive role from pretty much every major commerical Linux player and even some that aren't. In reality Linux support is considerably better (and in pretty much all cases free) than most people realise.
Open source software in quite a lot of cases works with Windows as well - You can't tell me that using Gimp for example instead of Adobe's massively expensive equivelent is at least not in some part appealing to those on a budget?
Wrong, and you're frankly an ***** if you'd use a driver to give a 1% performance edge (that you wouldn't even notice btw!) that would greatly increase the chances of destroying your expensive GPU. Thats not being an enthusiast, thats just being plain stupid. Thats all without saying that sometimes the latest drivers aren't actually the most suitable anyway, and thats in Windows.
Wrong again... Last time I checked Linux was better supported online than Microsoft in pretty much every area of its OS. Linux is also very well supported on a commerical level (Check Red Hat and Debian again!), so throws that whole argument to the bottom of the canal.
As for being outdated... Its is very much one of the most upto date OS' currently worked on. Its considerably more updated that Mac OS X who tend to release huge update packs for example. Updates are available usually very quickly after finding the issue in most Linux distros.. It also depends on what distro you use, and whether you want tried and tested stable, or more cutting edge testing, or the most upto date, but bleeding edge distro. As a Linux user you can choose this option, as well as decide what you want on your system.
If you don't like Linux thats fine - but there is a difference between not liking it (for whatever reason) and spreading absolute pointless BS > in case your wondering, your spreading the BS!
@Guest # 45
If we take your argument for the sake of it, do you expect an ordinary user to 'write/code' a driver for something which isn't working. Few years ago (when broadband wasn't so prevalent) I spent 3 months trying to get an Apache phone modem work on Red Hat, before eventually quiting. I am not sure how much the situation has improved today, but frankly I doubt that it has. Open source (read freebies) doesn't always offer the best support (if at all) for a corporate environment which can result in disruptions/rise in TCO etc., for a home user though it is okay as they shouldn't complain for somethign which is as I said is a freebie.
I can however, always agree with one aspect of Nix which Leeky implied in his post i.e. it is bit less resource hungry.
One aspect where I will differ from Leeky is, in all almost 20 years since I started using windows, I have never suffered an OS failure which was caused by the 'software', it has always been the 'hardware' which eventually ended up being the root of problems. May be, I am bit more 'cautious' user who doesn't put everything I stumble upon on my PC, but the fact is, any OS (most of the time) is as stable as the 'user' let it to be.