Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
r4p1d

Linux is great.

28 posts in this topic

For a long time I remember people telling me; "Linux does not compare to windows" funny thing is seeing as they were a windows user "which isn't bad, windows is great"

If you like windows, great! If you like linux, great! But it's all personal opinion.

Even from the 80's people have hated microsoft and blamed Bill gates for 95% or more computers having windows on them, calling him a "Monopolizing bastard"

But let's think of his side of the story.

Bill Gates believed that every person should have their own computer, so he developed windows and went to all these company's telling them "put my OS on your computer"

So now windows is the biggest OS ever made and by far the most successful software ever created.

Bill Gates took computers to the next level, if he wouldn't have stepped in with windows, computers would not be as powerful as they are today therefor we would have lacked great technology that we have today. The technology that was built on windows. Bill Gates has brought computers and technology to our world. We should all thank Bill Gates, he has done so much for our world.

Personally, I am a linux user. And a windows user, but I use linux as my main OS. Without windows, linux would have never hit it off and done as well as it has today.

But without linux, windows wouldn't have done as well.

Linux and Windows depend on each other for success.

You can't have peace without chaos. And you can't have chaos without peace.

Edited by r4p1d
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely credit windows for providing an accessible, friendly way to use a computer, but what do you mean by computers not being as powerful without Windows? What do you mean by "technology being built on Windows"? Most core technologies, like various security features, TCP/IP, etc, were first developed on UNIX systems. As it is Windows is not a POSIX-compliant system and Microsoft has had a history of going against the established standards.

I also don't think that Linux depends on Windows, at all. Definitely, a lot of open-source software has been heavily influenced by proprietary software, but at its core Linux is absolutely nothing like Windows. In fact in a recent interview, Linus Torvalds said that Microsoft is an uninteresting company and that Linux's whole goal isn't to compete with Microsoft but to provide an alternative system for people who like Linux's way of doing things better than how Windows does things.

Windows isn't really influenced by Linux, either. Maybe Vista took a few cues from UNIX with its UAC, and PowerShell is an attempt to create a useful UNIX-like shell, but really Windows and Linux have been developed almost completely independent of each other.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Computers wouldn't be as powerful because there would be less of them made, the more computers there are being made the faster the technology advances forward.

Linux is based off of GNU , Richard Stallman was the original creator of GNU, although once Linus Torvald wrote the kernel for it, it eventually inherited the name "Linux"

And yes Unix might have took the first step, but it took it 20 years to learn to walk.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Windows pioneered nothing, nor did Microsoft.. technology and adequately fast computers existed before Microsoft's dominance.

All they've done is proliferate technological ignorance, Windows users have no minds... and souls simply don't exist.

Edited by BSDfan
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much of what you said is just wrong. The PC revolution would have happened without Microsoft. They're not responsible for, nor were they the driving factor in the rise of the PC. Other companies (one small company from Cupertino California comes to mind) were doing fine without Microsoft around. IBM would have released the IBM PC even without Microsoft DOS (but I'm glad for MSDOS, did we really want CP/M machines?). If DOS and Windows weren't here, another operating system would have been.

There's such a huge difference in the philosophies behind Linux and Windows that they're difficult to compare. Windows exists to fill a need in a consumer marketplace. Linux doesn't even know what a consumer marketplace is. They're used by different people for different reasons. Comparing them is a lot like comparing a Hummer to a Porsche 911 (don't take that analogy too literally... or maybe you should).

This thread is flame-bait, don't let it get out of hand.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All they've done is proliferate technological ignorance, Windows users have no minds... and souls simply don't exist.

Technological ignorance will always exist, it's not a product of Microsoft. Some people don't understand technology, don't want to understand technology and are even intimidated by it. Anything that helps them operate computers efficiently is a good thing for society overall, but it sure does make our skin crawl to think what they're doing to their machines!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Technological ignorance will always exist, it's not a product of Microsoft. Some people don't understand technology, don't want to understand technology and are even intimidated by it. Anything that helps them operate computers efficiently is a good thing for society overall, but it sure does make our skin crawl to think what they're doing to their machines!

There should be an organization that rescues computers from unworthy owners.. ;)

Love the blog btw, found it referenced in one of your posts... didn't realize you're also the person who demonstrated that video on the 8086 thing.

Please ignore any of my violent outbursts, I just use this place to vent.. the people here are rather silly though.

Edited by BSDfan
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Technological ignorance will always exist, it's not a product of Microsoft. Some people don't understand technology, don't want to understand technology and are even intimidated by it. Anything that helps them operate computers efficiently is a good thing for society overall, but it sure does make our skin crawl to think what they're doing to their machines!

There should be an organization that rescues computers from unworthy owners.. ;)

Love the blog btw, found it referenced in one of your posts... didn't realize you're also the person who demonstrated that video on the 8086 thing.

Please ignore any of my violent outbursts, I just use this place to vent.. the people here are rather silly though.

People here are rather silly? So who are you referring to?

Technology would have advanced in a different direction without Microsoft. But it didn't.

Windows is not for stupid or illiterate people, windows is made for everybody that do not have the time to learn how to compile their own programs, nor have the time to learn terminal commands. Windows was built to be user friendly.

This thread was not intended to be a war thread.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Gates is a very smart guy. He's especially brilliant in the areas of PR and business and marketing strategies. In the early days of microcomputers, Gates promoted the emerging paradigm of computer software as a value-added product and he understood--probably better than anyone else in the industry at that time--the relationship between computer hardware, development tools, and applications. He realized that the viability and saleability of an OS platform was going to depend largely upon the quality and quantity of available end-user applications. Microsoft's initial business model was the development of programming languages, so they were uniquely poised to mobilize the developer community to that purpose. By providing developers with some of the most user-friendly programming tools of the day (like the Windows API and easy-to-learn languages such as BASIC), he ensured that Windows would be supported by a robust and diverse market of powerful programs. Microsoft also made a point of acquiring technologies that would give them an advantage in this area, for example the acquisition of Fox Software which brought them a powerful relational database. At the same time, they licensed their OS very cheaply to OEMs like IBM, as well as to their competitors. It was a risky move, but sure as hell it paid off in the end.

As far as the argument that Windows made the personal computer ubiquitous, that's just plain wrong. As others have pointed out, if it wasn't Microsoft who'd taken the initiative and grabbed the lion's share of the OS market then somebody else surely would have. It was pretty inevitable, given the state of the early home computer marketplace of the '80s, that some software-centric company would have ended up dominating the market with a copycat "desktop-metaphor" OS, similar to the one Apple had purchased from Xerox. Back in those days, there were quite a few of those on the market, but Microsoft succeeded mainly by concentrating their resources on the developer community and the hardware manufacturers. Anyway, UNIX was around long before Windows or even Apple, and most of the protocols and technologies that the Internet is based upon were developed on various UNIX variants (Linux, by the way, is a UNIX variant too).

I think far too much credit is given to Bill Gates and Microsoft and I don't quite understand why. As a technology company, Microsoft is not especially innovative or creative. Many of their most popular technologies were actually acquired through corporate mergers or acquisitions, or else just stolen outright. I guess people like Bill Gates because he's rich, and people generally like the idea that good, smart businessmen get rich by being disciplined and ambitious and by doing good things for the community at large, right? Take a critical look at the history of the Microsoft Corporation and you'll see the kinds of shenanigans they've really been up to all these years.

That said, I use Windows and Mac OS on occasion, but I prefer Linux and I don't expect to be switching back to Windows as my main platform in the foreseeable future. However, despite popular assertions within the OSS community that distros like Ubuntu have made Linux "desktop ready", it is still not appropriate for the average, techtarded user. Ubuntu is more a full-featured desktop OS for UNIX nerds than it is a Linux for the general public.

In my view, the problems with Linux being adopted full-scale as a "Windows replacement" range from still-spotty hardware compatibility to a lack of idiot-safe features. Windows XP and (to an even greater extent) Vista have placed several layers of "friendliness" between the user and the actual nuts-and-bolts of the OS. This is still not true of Linux. For example, in Linux you need to use the command shell occasionally, something which Windows users are largely insulated from (does Vista even have a DOS prompt?). Another difference is the lack of a "Registry". In Linux, there's no single place where all your system's internal hardware and software settings reside, and there's no neat little user-friendly app like regedit to make low-level configuration changes. In order to diagnose and fix a system problem in Linux, you have be familiar with a whole slew of configuration files (basically, editable text documents), their locations within the filesystem, and the meaning of their contents. In Linux, it's possible to type a single shell command that will render your entire system useless and/or destroy all your data. As far as I know, it's not possible to make such a mistake in Windows anymore. Thus, Linux is nowhere near as "tard-hardened" as Windows.

Another factor that makes Linux rather daunting to average users is also in my opinion one of its strongest advantages. Open-source software is generally modular by design and there's a high degree of granularity and less redundancy within the system. While most Windows apps try to pack as many features and as much functionality into each program and many apps provide redundant functionality, most open source apps are feature-lean and pointedly designed for a specific purpose. This is a good thing in terms of efficiency, but it also means that your system tends to have a large number of interdependent modules and small applications rather than fewer large, multipurpose ones. Most non-UNIX people tend to get confused when dealing with so many small apps. The applications' names also tend towards the esoteric and are often inspired by wry humor, much of which is lost on your typical mom and/or pop computer user. Non-techy people don't know the difference between SAMBA, Cron and GhostScript, let alone the differences between a bash and a korn shell. Until there's some kind of transparency to all this, the average user is going to find it terribly perplexing. Ubuntu has come a long way towards achieving that kind of transparency, but there's still a lot of work to be done. As much as I love the openness and flexibility of Linux, the sense of community and everything it stands for, I feel reluctant to recommend my non-tech-savvy friends to adopt it as their primary OS.

Anyway, the rewards are great if you can learn to live with Linux and use it effectively. Linux users are techies and problem-solvers. They kind of have to be, Running Linux, you can't help but learn a lot about your computer and learn how to solve problems. I may have to do a little more work to get something configured properly or to get an application to work, but at least I don't have a million layers of crap sitting between me and my system, occupying resources and bogging me down.

Edited by Colonel Panic
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many of their most popular technologies were actually acquired through corporate mergers or acquisitions, or else just stolen outright.

Kinda reminds me of Antitrust. :P

What Colonel Panic said seems to be the most accurate post yet. Looks like he put a lot of time into it too. I think that his post should end the OS war uprising in this post.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe, thanks.

I'd originally posted 3 short paragraphs, then kept thinking of new things to add, so I came back to this page and edited it multiple times over the course of about an hour. I thought of a bunch of stuff to add about Apple and its prospects of gaining dominance in the OS market, but I was getting dog-tired by that point and just went to bed instead.

Microsoft definitely has its place in the world, but I don't think its place ought to be 90+% of all computers in the world. I have a few friends and relatives who are MCP's and MCSE's and I often feel saddened whenever I meet a very smart IT professional who's dismissive and contemptuous of Linux and the open source community as a result of being indoctrinated into the Microsoft party. They really have no idea what they're missing.

As far as Apple is concerned, they never really had a chance to dominate the OS marketplace, because they follow a more classical approach to the hardware-software duality. Apple is an electronics company, not particularly a software company. For Apple, the OS is an integral part of their device, so selling it for use on other systems would be out of the question because that would encourage consumers to buy a cheaper machine from some other manufacturer and install Apple OS on it. For a short time in the late '90s when there were serious doubts about the company's future, Apple did sell the Mac ROMs and license out their OS, allowing certain select companies to manufacture Apple clones like the PowerPC. However, these machines were still nearly as expensive as Macs anyway, and after a few short years Apple realized that the practice of licensing out their landmark OS was hurting their bottom-line more than it was helping, so they stopped the practice.

Nowadays, Apple is a huge, strong corporation, thanks mostly to the popularity of the iPod. Their computers now contain Intel chips, so it might be a good time for them to enter the OS fray and start licensing a consumer version of OSX for PCs. Considering the popular distaste for Vista, if Apple did such a thing now and marketed it properly, emphasizing the compatibility with Windows (you can still open all your Win files with the Mac OS), it just might be the beginning of the end for Windows dominance of the OS marketplace. Imagine if they pulled a Gates and acquired a virtualization software like 2X or VMware Fusion and integrated it into OSX. They could then assert full compatibility with Windows applications as well. I know Apple would never make such a bold move because they still consider their hardware sales to be paramount, but just think what a shakedown this could cause in the OS marketplace.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason Apple computers are so nice is because the software is based around the computers that apple makes, allowing for them to spend more time fixing driver issues, ect. Mac OSX is almost bug free, and I don't think Apple wants to give up their awesome OS to be installed on shitty computers. The reason Apple is known so well is for the Ipod and their name of the company. I don't think Apple wants to make a turn for shit just to make more money. If they did, they would have already done it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kinda reminds me of Antitrust. :P

Rachael Leigh Cook is hot, she made that movie worth watching... too bad no movies like that are made anymore. :(

(Update)

Oh, and the best thing Apple did was use BSD as the basis for their operating system, down with embedded GUI-only operating systems without an adequately sophisticated text interface.

Edited by BSDfan
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:pissright:Once I started using BSD, I realized what a heaping pile of unorganized, poorly designed crap Linux actually was!:pissleft: :pengydie:

Although I used it as my desktop OS for 10 years, I feel that there are much better options out there now. I only use it for pen testing nowadays (it does have quite a few awesome hacking tools written for it. :ninja:) or perhaps for a small server operation.

:flush: Let's just hope the next major kernel release has some substantial overhaul, although it's pretty difficult to clean things up at this point in the game and still maintain backwards compatibility with previous API's and distributions. :voteno:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my favorite things about windows vista is that because it is so bloated, you can't even get a laptop with less than 2 gigs of ram. My HP was the cheapest model in the store and had 4 gigs. Thanks Bill. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Windows Vista is nice looking and all. But the backwards compatibility is not very good at this time. however it is increasing R4p1dly.

Edited by r4p1d
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clever people need idiots so that society can actually distinguish the clever people from the slightly less intelligent people, without these idiots, everybody will be just as clever as each other. and the word "clever" or geeks simply will not exist.

Thank you Idiots

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windows Vista is nice looking and all. But the backwards compatibility is not very good at this time. however it is increasing R4p1dly.

You think it's nice looking? I think it looks like a deep-fried turd.

Lots of syrupy visuals and pointless, poorly-conceived widgetry. Hell, most of the Vista desktop applets have been regular options on Mac desktops for over 5 years, and on X Window desktops for over a decade.

Vista is the AOL of operating systems.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windows Vista is nice looking and all. But the backwards compatibility is not very good at this time. however it is increasing R4p1dly.

You think it's nice looking? I think it looks like a deep-fried turd.

Lots of syrupy visuals and pointless, poorly-conceived widgetry. Hell, most of the Vista desktop applets have been regular options on Mac desktops for over 5 years, and on X Window desktops for over a decade.

Vista is the AOL of operating systems.

Bill Gates referred to Mac OsX when he was speaking of vista once.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vista is not all that slow. its only slow for people that cant wait for updates and your use "settings". yes all windows is bloat to make it easyer for people to use computers i mean it will support laptops with built in web cams and random hardware devices that sometimes unix will not support. it i suppose is also slow because it will auto compile programs when you install them and do just about any program you can find in about a minute. i personally use windows because of the choices i can make in programming languages, ieds, games, just about anything you want if your willing to look for it. there all good just depends on what you want. i would say microsft depended on unix when they tried out c++, and everyone depended on macintosh when they made a computer with a tv screen hooked up to it. i suppose .nix depended on microsoft when they adopted there new idea that software should be available for any computer.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my worthless opinion.

Mac OS was written as the People's PC. A good tough stable machine that can do a fair bit without overwhelming the user.

Hell, I had a Preforma 7500. Guess what I did with it? I played 3D ultra pinball: Space Cadet on it.

I had a Tray loader G3, What Did I do with it? I played a few games of unreal tourney....

Linux is a skuzzball of an operating system that has alot of cool switches and buttons to push, lots of fun to mess with and expand because its not bound by copyright and all the legal mumbo, It'll always be changing, but that overwhelms even the best computer user, coupled with its weak support for undocumented newer computers.

Windows will be, and is a business networking operating system. It was built from the ground up for stability, useability and the ability to do it right, the first time, but it its not with its faults, since a new operating system is released every two to three years due to major flaws found in the previous one, or some other marketing ploy, people often become frustrated, and turn to other OS's, but often they have windows forced down their throats due to the inveriable monopoly stemming from the very fact.

Imho, If I RTFM a few times, I'll get it and be able to use any OS placed in front of me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vista is not all that slow. its only slow for people that cant wait for updates and your use "settings".

It is horribly slow compared to XP. And disabling the Aero eyecandy actually made it seem to run slower.

yes all windows is bloat to make it easyer for people to use computers i mean it will support laptops with built in web cams and random hardware devices that sometimes unix will not support.

Actually Vista barely supported anything when it first came out, and was still bloated as shit.

it i suppose is also slow because it will auto compile programs when you install them and do just about any program you can find in about a minute.

What?

would say microsft depended on unix when they tried out c++,

How did they "depend" on Unix for C++? There have been a lot of different C++ compilers developed by independent companies, and it's not like Microsoft cares about standards anyway. Besides, Unix is very C-centric.

and everyone depended on macintosh when they made a computer with a tv screen hooked up to it.

A.K.A. a "laptop". Don't get too excited about it.

i suppose .nix depended on microsoft when they adopted there new idea that software should be available for any computer.

You're being sarcastic...right?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vista is not all that slow. its only slow for people that cant wait for updates and your use "settings".

It is horribly slow compared to XP. And disabling the Aero eyecandy actually made it seem to run slower.

yes all windows is bloat to make it easyer for people to use computers i mean it will support laptops with built in web cams and random hardware devices that sometimes unix will not support.

Actually Vista barely supported anything when it first came out, and was still bloated as shit.

it i suppose is also slow because it will auto compile programs when you install them and do just about any program you can find in about a minute.

What?

would say microsft depended on unix when they tried out c++,

How did they "depend" on Unix for C++? There have been a lot of different C++ compilers developed by independent companies, and it's not like Microsoft cares about standards anyway. Besides, Unix is very C-centric.

and everyone depended on macintosh when they made a computer with a tv screen hooked up to it.

A.K.A. a "laptop". Don't get too excited about it.

i suppose .nix depended on microsoft when they adopted there new idea that software should be available for any computer.

You're being sarcastic...right?

depended on unix when choosing how deeply to employ c++ into windows probably based some of there desicions off of unix. and no not aka a laptop aka a computer that does not print out paper when you run every single program or command. aka a desktop, a laptop, a computer that is small enough to fit inside of a room. and yes i am being very sarcastic i mean i see all of these .nix branded computers all over the place that can only boot .nix. no .nix is software.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
depended on unix when choosing how deeply to employ c++ into windows probably based some of there desicions off of unix.

What the hell are you rambling about? Type coherent sentences for fuck's sake.

and no not aka a laptop aka a computer that does not print out paper when you run every single program or command.

Apple didn't invent non-printer output.

aka a desktop, a laptop, a computer that is small enough to fit inside of a room.

Apple invented none of those.

and yes i am being very sarcastic i mean i see all of these .nix branded computers all over the place that can only boot .nix. no .nix is software.

Great. Remember to take your meds and stay away from traffic.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0