Which of which is better and Safe Linux or Windows?

[friendlyfire]

Survey for my research. Comments suggestions violent reactions will help the researcher conclude which of which is better. thanks. God Bless.

 

[kimsland]

You should have run a poll
Actually it may have already been done (please search)

Your question has two parts:

Safer: Linux (No dispute on that)
Basically 99.9% of all Virus and Trojans are made for Windows

Better: Windows (that's where the violent reactions will come in lol )
Basically most programs are made for Windows
Yes Linux can run many Windows Programs/Games (and lots already made for Linux)
But some just don't work! (ie Flash<- it can work, but just not well, I believe)

There are millions of other Pros and Cons (that could make this thread huge)
(ie Linux is free for private use)
But you asked Safer and Better

 

[Nodsu]

It sort of depends on one's definition of "better" and "safer", doesn't it? Also, "Windows" and "Linux" are very broad categories. Windows 1.0 and Vista are quite different and so are all the Linux distributions. Not to mention that when we go and start picking on words, Windows can mean an entire operating system (or just a GUI) and Linux can mean just a kernel or an entire OS.

You should probably improve on your researching skills and do some real research first before asking such provokative and impossible to answer questions.

Or really, make it a poll and let people vote according to their subjective opinion. (And then try to figure out how many of those that answered are actually qualified to have an opinion a la whether they have really used both operating systems.)

 

[resu]

i love windows .. always have always will.. and as of yet my new system (running media centre edition) hasn't come across any serious viruses and hasnt suffered any major failure .. but as most of us know windows has a tendency to degrade itself over time which results in slower running of the computer
which then leads to the hastle of a reinstall ... for which to work well you may aswell format the whole drive and start a fresh .. getting rid of the programs you never use etc.

as i see it windows has a massive user base and so theres loads of support out there for it .. but theres also alot of people exploiting its weaknesses and who write viruses for it.

Linux i am yet to experience .. but once i get my old socket A rig back up and running as a little server for music/printing/films etc then im pretty sure ill be running linux instead of windows .. mainly for something new to play with .. but also because it seems alot more efficient in the way that it works.

there are loads of different versions on linux out there pretty much tailored to the users needs. im not sure on their resilience to viruses but im sure they are less prone to them than windows is.

with regards to running software .. well i guess i wont really know until ive tried it but you can get programs such as Crossover that allow you to run windows software on a linux based system.
there is always a way imo

anyway i guess in conclusion .. its up to you
if your happy with windows then stick with it .. if your worried about safety then use some of the recommended anti virus software out there (i use Avast) and stick a hardware firewall in front of your computer

if you wanna try something new then go with linux .. youll only know what you like once youve tried it

my advice is ask around about linux and make you machine run both then you can switch between OS's to compare the two and then go from there

 

[caravel]

But some just don't work! (ie Flash<- it can work, but just not well, I believe)

Flash works fine, please try not to propagate popular mythology. Java also works fine it's just that some people always seem to mess up the installation because as with anything Linux related it's never "double click and done".

http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/down...Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash&P2_Platform=Linux

 

[SNGX1275]

Well that depends caravel. I believe Flash 9 was significantly slow to get to linux, or perhaps that was just 64bit. I also know that the primary reason for me not running xubuntu on a B&W G3 Mac a couple years ago was because there was no Flash for that (still is none that I know of, and never will be).

 

[caravel]

Well that depends caravel. I believe Flash 9 was significantly slow to get to linux, or perhaps that was just 64bit. I also know that the primary reason for me not running xubuntu on a B&W G3 Mac a couple years ago was because there was no Flash for that (still is none that I know of, and never will be).

A valid point but I feel it fair to say that at least xubuntu Linux would actually run on that Mac, will Windows Vista run on it? Also a couple of years ago in Ubuntu terms amounts to eons. I've found that 7.10 is a lot more stable and much easier to get up and running than ealier releases. Ive' had no problems with flash, java, networking, drivers or any problems for that matter since I've been running this versin and thas been several months.

My point is that blanket statements to the effect that Flash doesn't work as well as it does in Windows tend to get picked up on and passed around. Also the earlier problems with flash were not down to Linux anyway, most of the problems were down to adobe's delays.

 

[cos]

Calm down guys, there seems to be a lot of steam generating, yer man only asked a question, quite a valid one 2. I Love windows and live et al, but i also have to put up with the constant threats and bugs. It would be nice to work away uninterupted by error messages.
Linux seems interesting, and i know very little of it, it would be nice to have more information. Yours, chilled, Cos.

 

[SNGX1275]

I don't know what steam you are percieving, I wasn't fighting with anyone I merely counterpointed the 'flash works fine in linux' because it was too broad of a generalization.

This isn't a very valid question anyway, its someone trying to get some forum to do his homework for him. You can't just say: Windows/Linux Fight!

Nodsu's post in this thread sums up my thoughts about the thread quite well.

 

[kimsland]

I've used both.

It's pretty easy to do, as Linux decided to bring out Live CD's, that cause no side effect to Windows (actually you don't even need a Hard Drive (now that's better!)
Just use a Flash drive, to save anything and you're done.

But this flash issue that I have ignorantly thrown a blanket over Linux OS. Why then when I went to habbo.com (after updating Linux flash, as per Adobe and Ubuntu forums) did it basically not work? (I say basically because the screen was out, and I couldn't see my posting area field) ie can others please re-confirm that Habbo.com (flash site) works. Because if it does, then I will put two computers here back on Ubuntu (or which-ever the new flavour of the day is)

If Linux is better, and free, and secure, and working with all applications. Then why do we all use Windows? (except I suppose those Linux commands aren't user friendly - in my view) The average user of Windows, does not need to run anything like this. ie "Run" commands are never used by most users.

I've gone off a tad from the subject, but I'd like a faithful Linux user just to answer my questions a little, before saying don't buy Windows (are you mad!).

 

[caravel]

No steam here either, I pretty much agree with SNGX1275 and Nodsu.

 

[Nodsu]

As already said, Flash issues have got nothing to do with Linux. It's a certain company (Adobe) that has decided to not develop their product (Flash player) properly for certain platforms and architectures, that's it.

This is way different from Microsoft deliberately rendering hundreds (thousands?) of software packages unusable with every WIndows release..

You say that Linux+Flash is bad when you had a problem on one website using a certain single Linux version..

Anyway, Habbo.com works for me (as in the left-side flash thingy shows) and I'm not even using a sensible setup: Opera 64-bit development snapshot and 32-bit Flash 9.0.115 on SuSE 10.3 64-bit

 

[caravel]

If Linux is better, and free, and secure, and working with all applications. Then why do we all use Windows? (except I suppose those Linux commands aren't user friendly - in my view) The average user of Windows, does not need to run anything like this. ie "Run" commands are never used by most users.

Simple question, simple answer: Support.

The reason I dual boot is because some of the programs and apps I need don't run on Linux, even under wine. This is pretty much the reason why most people use windows, not out of choice, butbecause many apps and especially games are developed exclusively for it. What is needed is for more games developers especially to lead the way and start developing Linux ports. This is not likely at the moment as M$ has the strangle hold of the gaming industry with DirectX (as well as "Games for Windows" and the new Live service).

I disagree with your comments on the command line. In Windows terms the loss of the dominance of the command line has been a big loss. The command line is as you say not much use to the average end user but to a systems admin it is vital. The Windows command line lags behind a bash shell in terms of functionality and ease of use.

Commands are also useful in the way that if I want to try and assist someone remotely (for example on a forum or by email) I can give them some copy and paste commands for them to try (these don't have to be line fixes, though in theory they could be, they can be commands that gather info about a driver or package). With Windows it's a long winded and error prone case of "click this, click that, click the whatsit tab, uncheck that box, click that, click apply, now click here...." etc etc.

Personally I think every user needs to know some basic commands, whatever your level of interest. User friendliness is all well and good, but it doesn't help you much if something is broken that can't be fixed using the mouse alone. The problem with modern PC use is that it promotes a culture of "you don't need to do anything the wizard will do it all for you". This is typical of M$'s approach to their OSes. Instead of educating the user, they simply dumb down the OS even further and this creates more headaches for admins and tech support people, and provides us with a generation of users that hardly know their left click from their right.

Long live the command line. :wave:

 

[cos]

Well said Caravel, spoken like a true gentleman. Interesting debate. Personaly, i'll stick to M$, most of my usage is gaming, and i just adore the live format. I don't even want vista till i am able to play my games.

 

[Nodsu]

Funny how some 15 years after their first server OS, MS has finally realised the usefulness of command line and has produced PowerShell that will be a vital part of all future server products..