I don't get it. By all rights, Windows should be WAY better then Ubuntu.

[CJ Master]

I know this topic might upset some people, but I know this community pretty well by now, and I'm confident that nobody will lose control and go to flaming. =]

As for the topic... Seriously, why is Ubuntu (in my opinion) better then Windows? This is something I've been curious about for a while.....

Microsoft has a huge corp. that makes BILLIONS. There are tons upon tons of employees. GNU/Linux originally was a tiny tiny team, yet look where it is today!

DOS and Linux are quite similar, of course Linux being a bit more advance considering DOS hasn't been used for years.

So, I'm wondering, they both came from similar roots, with Microsoft in the lead, yet Ubuntu Linux has practically no viruses, speedier bootup, less crashes (I've never had a kernal panic), ect ect. Why isn't Windows way better?

All responses are appreciated. =)

[Mohamedzv2]

1.Ubuntu is based on Debian which is from the Linux kernel which is more advanced than DOS.
2.Windows cares about keeping customers, Ubuntu tries to keep their OS to a standard, which attracts customers.
3.Windows costs more.
4.Ubuntu has a huge friendly community which is always here to answer your questions, windows doesn't.

[phrostbyte]

I think it's because Microsoft has a pretty strong monopoly and no real incentive to do better. That's the reason they could wait 7 years to release a new version of an operating system. Apple could never get away with that. That's a big reason why people support a free market, free market with heavy competition means more innovation and better products for consumers.

But besides that, Microsoft, while a huge, huge, massive, conglomerate of a company... is only one company. Linux is developed by dozens, maybe hundreds of different organizations, as diverse as IBM, HP, Google, AMD, Intel, Red Hat, even the Department of Defense. And many many more, all over the world. This level of support is difficult to compete with technologically in a single organization.

[Giant Speck]

I can already see where this thread is going:

1.) It's going to be moved to Recurring Discussions.
2.) At least 50% of the responses will be lacking in spelling skills and will include one or more of the following: M$, *******, Micro$oft, etc.
3.) There will be a small minority of Windows-sympathizers who will defend Windows no matter what, and in response there will be another small minority of Linux-sympathizers who will defend Linux no matter what.
4.) Someone will go nuts and flame.
5.) Thread closed.

In the meantime, :popcorn:

[koenn]

DOS and Linux are quite similar, of course Linux being a bit more advance considering DOS hasn't been used for years.

So, I'm wondering, they both came from similar roots, with Microsoft in the lead, ...

You're pretty clueless. There's very little similarity between DOS and Linux. The only, very superficial, similarity is that a linux console or terminal may look a bit like DOS : it's a screen with characters on it.

The 'similar roots' between Linux and Microsoft is likewise nonsense.

So, then, why do you think Windows should be better than Linux ? Your whole reasoning is based on nothing.


--------
skipped straight to 4,
awaiting 5.

[Half-Left]

Just because of those things dont make it a fact windows should be better, things to note.

Microsoft have deadlines

Microsoft push hardware sales on their OS

Linux doesn't have a tiny team, we have lots of testers.

Underlining unix/linux core is stable and has been for what, 20 years.

Linux doesn't have legacy bagadge

You pay for Windows and expect a better product?

Microsoft is profit motivated, which gets in the way of a good product.

[jespdj]

As for the topic... Seriously, why is Ubuntu (in my opinion) better then Windows? This is something I've been curious about for a while.....
The security is much better, because it's based on the Unix security model which has been designed to be secure from the start; on Windows, security has been patched on after the fact (Windows 3.1, 95, 98 did almost have no security at all; Vista is better, but it's still based on the lame Windows security model). Etc. etc...


Microsoft has a huge corp. that makes BILLIONS. There are tons upon tons of employees. GNU/Linux originally was a tiny tiny team, yet look where it is today!
Just because Windows is sold by a company that plays a very aggressive marketing game doesn't make the quality of the product any better than anything else. GNU/Linux is being developed by thousands of developers in thousands of different companies. Because so many eyes from so many different places look at it, and everybody can look at the source code, the quality is very good.


DOS and Linux are quite similar, of course Linux being a bit more advance considering DOS hasn't been used for years.
Huh?! In what way do you think DOS and Linux are similar? Technically, Linux and DOS are totally different. DOS is a very simple and minimal single-user operating sysem. Linux is based on Unix and is a very advanced and secure multi-user, multi-tasking OS.


So, I'm wondering, they both came from similar roots, with Microsoft in the lead, yet Ubuntu Linux has practically no viruses, speedier bootup, less crashes (I've never had a kernal panic), ect ect. Why isn't Windows way better?
Because Windows doesn't need to be better than it is. Microsoft practically have no competition, so they don't have a great incentive to make Windows a lot better. They're also stuck in some areas because new versions of Windows need to remain compatible with old versions, which means they can't easily change the bad parts of the Windows architecture for something new and better.

[s3a]

"Microsoft is profit motivated, which gets in the way of a good product."

as well as the fact that it is open source is what makes Linux better in my opinion. The only real benefit of Windows (again, in my opinion) is not having to wait for drivers for certain hardware (I know that it isn't the fault of the community but it remains a fact at least in multiple cases). On the other, if you find old hardware, the situation is favourable in Linux and not Windows so if you're a bargain shopper (wait for prices to go down on certain hardware) then Linux should be really great for you! ;)

And by the way, (in my opinion)---> Linux (and probably Unix, never tried it though)>Mac>Windows

I also think that Apple has a rising share of the market due to Microsoft's failures at certain things. Anyway, I am probably stating the obvious, but it is on topic ;).

"Because Windows doesn't need to be better than it is. Microsoft practically have no competition, so they don't have a great incentive to make Windows a lot better. They're also stuck in some areas because new versions of Windows need to remain compatible with old versions, which means they can't easily change the bad parts of the Windows architecture for something new and better."

They have incentive although minor based on what my French teacher told me ~2 years ago (he was a Microsoft ex-employee). He told me that he had to read up on Linux to compete in what it does good or something like that.

And finally,
Spider-Man>Iron Man
lol

[laceration]

This is a lame thread and I don't really want to participate, but I get irked when things are asserted that are misleading. Like this-

speedier bootup, less crashes
If you want to make the case that Ubuntu is better, these are not the best arguments. These are not true in a substantial way.

[the yawner]

Compare how Ubuntu got the FUSA (fast user switcher applet) in Intrepid to how Vista got the shutdown button designed.

[EnGorDiaz]

i can already see where this thread is going:

1.) it's going to be moved to recurring discussions.
2.) at least 50% of the responses will be lacking in spelling skills and will include one or more of the following: M$, *******, micro$oft, etc.
3.) there will be a small minority of windows-sympathizers who will defend windows no matter what, and in response there will be another small minority of linux-sympathizers who will defend linux no matter what.
4.) someone will go nuts and flame.
5.) thread closed.

In the meantime, :popcorn:

+9000

it makes me think sometimes that the makers of these threads are clever trolls as such

[frup]

Well lets just say that if Ubuntu wasn't Free(dom) software, I wouldn't use it. (all though I use Ubuntu rather than gNewSense or Debian because I am somewhat pragmatic too)

I do marvel at how good GNU/Linux is with a far smaller budget than other OS's but then, I don't really know how many developer hours the likes of Canonical, Novell, RedHat, IBM, Sun and Intel etc. are really pouring in. When you think that scores of companies are working together to make something better for everyone it's a nice feeling... but with all that work is it good enough? Desktop Linux is still below 1% Looks like the rest of the world doesn't think so.

But who really cares? I'm happy, my family who have switched are happy, my gaming friends still on XP are happy with XP... Why does it matter? They are free to do as they like after all. No one who has used my computer has thought it hard to use or really that different... none thought it anything special either.

[Delever]

I don't get it. By all rights, Windows should be WAY better then Ubuntu.

And lots of people DO believe Windows is better. It depends on what "better" means to them, so this debate is endless..

[mangar]

Linux is flexible, cheap, inconsistent, with limited software library.

Windows is backward compatible and consistent, with huge software library.

Mac is fashionable and pretty, with medium to small software library.

That's more or less summarizes the entire Linux / Mac / Windows debate, given your needs, wants, and political preferences.

Please lock this thread.

[Ub1476]

Probably because Linux (the kernel) has lots of companies and stand-alone people who backs it up, making it the fastest growing software project to date.

[fela]

I can already see where this thread is going:

1.) It's going to be moved to Recurring Discussions.
2.) At least 50% of the responses will be lacking in spelling skills and will include one or more of the following: M$, *******, Micro$oft, etc.
3.) There will be a small minority of Windows-sympathizers who will defend Windows no matter what, and in response there will be another small minority of Linux-sympathizers who will defend Linux no matter what.
4.) Someone will go nuts and flame.
5.) Thread closed.

In the meantime, :popcorn:

Yeah, I hate it when people just cling to a certain company/whatever no matter how bad it really is. Fanboys is the word I'm looking for.

[menixmatrix]

You're pretty clueless. There's very little similarity between DOS and Linux. The only, very superficial, similarity is that a linux console or terminal may look a bit like DOS : it's a screen with characters on it.

The 'similar roots' between Linux and Microsoft is likewise nonsense.

So, then, why do you think Windows should be better than Linux ? Your whole reasoning is based on nothing.


--------
skipped straight to 4,
awaiting 5.
Whay you talk about DOS? they have "Power Shell" by now.

[ELD]

Just because of those things dont make it a fact windows should be better, things to note.

Microsoft have deadlines

Microsoft push hardware sales on their OS

Linux doesn't have a tiny team, we have lots of testers.

Underlining unix/linux core is stable and has been for what, 20 years.

Linux doesn't have legacy bagadge

You pay for Windows and expect a better product?

Microsoft is profit motivated, which gets in the way of a good product.

We also have deadlines to reach, while it is easier for us to push them back we still have them to release versions ontime.

Lots of testers doesn't mean much, we may have a lot, but more than half probably submit bug reports with useless information.

Beleive it or not but the NT Kernel is pretty stable now (applications installed and gui are not the Kernel remember).

We do have legacy bagadge just not as much.

People who pay for a product generally expect better than a free product because obviously they have paid, they want the support and for it to work, but as we all know, not always the case.

And i agree with your last point :)

[Skripka]

As for the topic... Seriously, why is Ubuntu (in my opinion) better then Windows? This is something I've been curious about for a while.....
.
.
.
So, I'm wondering, they both came from similar roots, with Microsoft in the lead, yet Ubuntu Linux has practically no viruses, speedier bootup, less crashes (I've never had a kernal panic), ect ect. Why isn't Windows way better?

All responses are appreciated. =)

Why? In large part because Microsoft has repeatedly chosen monumentally stupid ideas-and dug their heels in, whilst other better alternatives were already around.....and in so doing Microsoft was refusing to innovate and enjoying it's market dominance.

Examples you say?

FAT. This partition table should have been dumped and gone the way of the DoDo long before it did. There were better alternatives back in the days of Windows 3.1-they chose to keep using FAT. All that defragmenting nonsense....yuck.

Permissions. Both for files/folders and executables. Most of the historical problems of Windows comes from the fact that DOS was never designed to be a secure multi-user environment connected to the internet. DOS was for a geek who wanted to get things done-and wanted as little in the way (security and otherwise) as possible. And what do ya know-they tried to keep their OS based on DOS I still have nightmares about putting up with that crap....I remember those good ol days.

Firewalls. Another security matter.... Why did they design their OS to be social? In that the computer wants and is willing to listen to any port that there is anything happening on-regardless of what malware is being spewed from the other end.

That's a taster.


Most of the above have been cured or addressed due to the repeated attacks...and Windows finally got the 5 years old memo that they were being boneheaded....but the above really delayed Windows in terms of performance and security until very recently.

[GTLinux]

Linux is Like when America was a true free country

Windows is Like a Communist Country

Apple is Like China

[richg]

It is easy for those who know what they are doing.

Just like Linux is easy for those who know what they are doing.

Rich

[Changturkey]

Linux is Like when America was a true free country

Windows is Like a Communist Country

Apple is Like China

Worst analogy ever.

[Therion]

... they both came from similar roots.
No, they didn't. Further, they have at their base VERY different philosophies about how many things... In fact how just about EVERYTHING, really, should be done. From user access to security to file structure to the distribution methodology. Then of course there's that whole "proprietary vs open source" source thing going on.


Why isn't Windows way better?
Because you can't solve every problem by throwing money at it.
And when the same people who CREATE the problems are set to the task of "fixing" them... Well... Heh...



Worst analogy ever.
+1

[Half-Left]

Linux is Like when America was a true free country

Windows is Like a Communist Country

Apple is Like China

Very bad.

Linux as the whole doesn't lie to it's people covering up mistakes throughout it's history, if America was a true free country you'd be able to walk into area 51 and build a house there. :popcorn:

[sqrooup]

And have a beer with the President, in the Oval Office

[cardinals_fan]

Microsoft is profit motivated, which gets in the way of a good product.
Not necessarily. Many of the most important contributions to FOSS come from for-profit companies such as Novell, Red Hat, and IBM. In my opinion, Red Hat has quite a good product.

Linux is Like when America was a true free country

Windows is Like a Communist Country

Apple is Like China
Linux: Anarchy
Windows: Communism
Mac: The Borg

/joking

[pp.]

why is Ubuntu (in my opinion) better then Windows?

Microsoft has a huge corp. that makes BILLIONS. There are tons upon tons of employees.

DOS and Linux are quite similar, of course Linux being a bit more advance considering DOS hasn't been used for years.

...they both came from similar roots, with Microsoft in the lead, yet Ubuntu Linux has practically no viruses, speedier bootup, less crashes (I've never had a kernal panic), ect ect. Why isn't Windows way better?

All responses are appreciated. =)

It might just be your perception. Other people claim that Windows is better for some things.

Microsoft is - as you say - a largish corporation. They also do more than one product, not only Windows. So it's not useful to count the numbers of people in development unless you know what products they work on.

I don't see why you mention DOS when your thread is about Windows. Entirely different product.

[Ub1476]

Linux is too good to be comparable to any country if you ask me. :)

[Frak]

I can already see where this thread is going:

1.) It's going to be moved to Recurring Discussions.
2.) At least 50% of the responses will be lacking in spelling skills and will include one or more of the following: M$, *******, Micro$oft, etc.
3.) There will be a small minority of Windows-sympathizers who will defend Windows no matter what, and in response there will be another small minority of Linux-sympathizers who will defend Linux no matter what.
4.) Someone will go nuts and flame.
5.) Thread closed.

In the meantime, :popcorn:
O rly? (http://www.somethingawful.com/flash/shmorky/babby.swf)

[oldos2er]

The OP might want to look up 'The Cathedral and the Bazaar.'