Linux vs Windows
- Thread starter MWA
- Start date
Windows is easier to use (for the newbie), much easier to get support for, far easier to find applications for. Windows XP is more stable then anything I've ever seen.
Linux "security" is an illusion. Less people use it, so less people attack it. Windows makes it easy to attack it.
And although I use XP, I will be switching to Linux soon. With TCPA coming....Windows won't be the place I want to be.
Linux "security" is an illusion. Less people use it, so less people attack it. Windows makes it easy to attack it.
And although I use XP, I will be switching to Linux soon. With TCPA coming....Windows won't be the place I want to be.
Windows XP is far superior to any Linux OS I have ever used.
As CornMaster said, Linux security is an illusion.
Linux users, not only are more rare, but are also much more experienced.
An experienced and novice Windows User who keeps update to patchers and makes his own script firewalls will be as secure as he is doing the same in Linux.
The Linux open source is unsafe, quite recently THREE trojan horses were found implemented into open source applications in Linux.
Put a user infront of the automated security system of windows, or infront of Linux. Where will he be more safe? Windows of course.
Where will he feel more comfortable? Windows of course.
Which of the two is more user friendly? The answer is obvious.
As CornMaster said, Linux security is an illusion.
Linux users, not only are more rare, but are also much more experienced.
An experienced and novice Windows User who keeps update to patchers and makes his own script firewalls will be as secure as he is doing the same in Linux.
The Linux open source is unsafe, quite recently THREE trojan horses were found implemented into open source applications in Linux.
Put a user infront of the automated security system of windows, or infront of Linux. Where will he be more safe? Windows of course.
Where will he feel more comfortable? Windows of course.
Which of the two is more user friendly? The answer is obvious.
I will agree that Windows XP is easier to use but Linux is getting close. Linux security, IMHO, is better than Windows XP. Mandrake 9.0 is easier to install than Windows XP. Red Hat 8.0 is getting closer in installation ease.
Security: MS just doesn't care while on the Linux side you have people that are striving, a lot of them for free, to make Linux to be more stable and secure. MS is just trying to make more money. If you are pointing out holes in programs that are not a part of Linux, like Apache web server, MYSQL, and other programs like that, as being a part of Linux then you are incorrect. Those are add-on programs unlike Internet Explorer and Outlook Express which have been known to have had some big problems.
Security: MS just doesn't care while on the Linux side you have people that are striving, a lot of them for free, to make Linux to be more stable and secure. MS is just trying to make more money. If you are pointing out holes in programs that are not a part of Linux, like Apache web server, MYSQL, and other programs like that, as being a part of Linux then you are incorrect. Those are add-on programs unlike Internet Explorer and Outlook Express which have been known to have had some big problems.
It is also much more "thin".
Windows is a fat dude trying to do deliver the papers to the user's hands while running the neighberhood. Sometimes he can faint.
Linux is like a lazy athlete, saying "Look how fast, stable and healthy I am. But if you want your newspaper, you need to come and get it".
Windows is a fat dude trying to do deliver the papers to the user's hands while running the neighberhood. Sometimes he can faint.
Linux is like a lazy athlete, saying "Look how fast, stable and healthy I am. But if you want your newspaper, you need to come and get it".
I just had an arguement with a co-worker that has been using Red Hat for the last two years and not windows. He has recently loaded XP up and loves it. He said that Linux and X are buggy. I came back and said that Windows is even buggier. He said that it has been running great for him and also said that after loading a lot of things on his Linux box that it got bogged down. I told him that is the reason why I reload MS OSes ever 3 or so months. My XP system at home is almost unbearable right now even though I defragged the systen recently (which took many hours). I also have to say that X windows has literature all over the internet on how it works and is very configurable compared to Windows' windows system that is completely closed source and MS doesn't say much about it. Does anyone think this might change with the recent judgement by the US gov't against MS for it's monopoly abuses?
Sodapop
Teh pop in teh can
I've been using RedHat 8.0 for 2 weeks now, and I think it's great. It's like another step, a completely different thing. I was able to learn a lot of stuff, and though I feel there's a lot more to learn, I'm quite happy with what I've been able to do so far. Yes, my windows XP is nice, user friendly and everything. But I also remember the first time I used a comp, and I thought that windows 3.11 and 95 were so hard to use and to learn. It's only a question of getting used to the way your computer works. As I said, it's a whole new thing, and it's not harder, just different... Personally, I love it, but that's because I like challenges. Computing is not only a "use the computer to do X stuff" for me. The basic of computer is to learn, adapt and to get experience. And linux gives me this. Windows gave this to me in the past too... 
Sodapop
Teh pop in teh can
Well it wasn't that harder for me... Who knows, I might be gifted 
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,136
Let's give reason the benefit of the doubt and blame it on how much easier Linux has become 
However, I will say that munzy is very wrong in assuming it's the OSes fault that windows is not too stable(except for ME, I WONT defend ME). I have a win95 computer next to me that has crashed only a few times in 6 years...one or 2 blue screens ever and THAT'S IT. It has never been connected to the internet, and as such only runs necessary software. I also have a win 98 computer, connected to the net, with loads of shareware and freeware. Not suprisingly, that comp is much less stable than the other is. I also have some XP machines which are very stable and crash very infrequently. My linux machines are also very stable and my DOS machines(don't ask) never crash. The MAIN problem with winodows OSes is that they are so easy to develop for that everyone and their wet dog makes 400 utilities, most of which have more bugs than munzy's underwear drawer, and distribute them all over the net...to conflict with others programs and so on and so forth.... Give me an XP machine w/out added shareware vs. a fresh Linux(mandrake or redhat) machine and I'll take XP. Lot's of people go Linux because they think it's the new and cool thing to do..not because of any REAL reason or because it does some tricks that windows can't do.
As for servers, hands down it's linux all the way.
However, I will say that munzy is very wrong in assuming it's the OSes fault that windows is not too stable(except for ME, I WONT defend ME). I have a win95 computer next to me that has crashed only a few times in 6 years...one or 2 blue screens ever and THAT'S IT. It has never been connected to the internet, and as such only runs necessary software. I also have a win 98 computer, connected to the net, with loads of shareware and freeware. Not suprisingly, that comp is much less stable than the other is. I also have some XP machines which are very stable and crash very infrequently. My linux machines are also very stable and my DOS machines(don't ask) never crash. The MAIN problem with winodows OSes is that they are so easy to develop for that everyone and their wet dog makes 400 utilities, most of which have more bugs than munzy's underwear drawer, and distribute them all over the net...to conflict with others programs and so on and so forth....
Give me an XP machine w/out added shareware vs. a fresh Linux(mandrake or redhat) machine and I'll take XP. Lot's of people go Linux because they think it's the new and cool thing to do..not because of any REAL reason or because it does some tricks that windows can't do.As for servers, hands down it's linux all the way.
Sanaz
Gorilla Joe
Linux/Unix is a very different world than the PC/Macs. Comparing them is not comparing apples and oranges. With OS X, the two worlds have begun to merge. If it weren't for the proprietary HW requirements, and expenses, I'd be using it at home already - the ad campaign for transitioning is good, but it would still cost me way too much to convert from Win98. Windows is great for mail, MS Office, games. Mac is great for video and photo manipulation, non-computer-savvy, and most day to day activity. Unix is great for networking, stability, and versatility (routers, firewalls, file management, back-end servers, etc...).
So, I say there's room for all. I wouldn't want a Jeep in the suburbs, a Porsche in the mountains, or a volkswagon to haul timber. For the same reason, I wouldn't want to be limited to Windows OR Unix OR Mac (OR mainframes, handhelds and embedded devices, supercomputers, or clusters, for that matter).
I've never much understood these arguments.
So, I say there's room for all. I wouldn't want a Jeep in the suburbs, a Porsche in the mountains, or a volkswagon to haul timber. For the same reason, I wouldn't want to be limited to Windows OR Unix OR Mac (OR mainframes, handhelds and embedded devices, supercomputers, or clusters, for that matter).
I've never much understood these arguments.
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,136
And cars shouldn't need gas to run, people shouldn't need sleep to live, computers shouldn't need electricity to run, everyone should play civ, and I should be a multi-billionare.
NO OS will run every program w/out error. That's absurd. Port all the current windows progs to linux and you've got a "buggy" os.
Lame arguement. Let's not try to improve on things....let's just keep it like it is. One day we will not need gas to drive a vehicle, as much sleep, and we will live longer. Why? Because of complainers like me...and maybe with a little help from the extremely smart people that develop those technologies.
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,136
I'm not saying we shouldn't improve them. Please re-read my post and then reply again
Similar threads
