Which Operating System Is Best?

[reesclissold]

Thought I would make my first post a good 'un. Short time lurker, long time Linux fan here. Well, here we go...

First off, I think I should point out an important fact. There is no right answer in the Windows / Mac / Linux debate. No one has got it entirely right and no one has got it entirely wrong. Let me explain using the power of analogy! [add echo effect]

On my drive to work every day I see lots of different cars. Fords, Vauxhalls, Peugeots, Nissans, Hondas, and so on. I'm pretty sure almost every single person I see driving their car had their own reasons for choosing it, and their own reasons for believing it was a better option than the alternatives. I'm sure most of them are pretty happy with their car just the way it is, and would get pretty defensive if someone else came along and started spouting off about how they're an idiot for driving what they drive.

But, from what we know about the software world, surely some of them are wrong? Surely only one type of car has got it "right" and owners of other cars are all idiots who are just going against the flow because they're stubborn? Of course, we all know that isn't true. But if it is true for software, as is the general opinion, why isn't it true for cars? Because every person has their own needs when it comes to buying a car. Everyone has their own needs when it comes to everything. Why the hell should operating systems be any different?

Let's investigate the car analogy a bit further, and see what, if anything, we can learn from it.

Windows users are like the huge majority of car owners. They like something functional, good value for money, with a good dealer network if something goes wrong. They like to get their car from a company which won't disappear into thin air tomorrow, because they like to rely on the fact that, for the time they own the car, it will continue to be all of the above things to them. These are normal, sensible people, who are well aware that other options exist, but as far as they are concerned, there are just more important things in life than worrying about their car.

Mac users are like the BMW and Mercedes owners of the world. It's a fact that BMW and Mercedes make good cars, no matter what your opinion is of them. Yes, they're pretty much the same as the cars the people in the above category buy, but they're a bit better put together, the dealers have a closer relationship with the buyers, and the manufacturers like to put a bit more effort into making their cars look a little bit nicer, cleaner, and "different". That's what attracts a certain breed of buyer to their cars in the first place, a breed of buyer willing to pay a premium for these things.

Linux users are like classic car and kit car owners. They like the thrill of the olden days of motoring when you could open the bonnet and re-gap the points. They like their cars a bit clunky and a bit temperamental, and they call it "character". Sure, it's harder to find the help and the parts they might need to keep their classic car running, but as time goes on they learn lots of little tricks that make living with these cars a bit easier. Their owners still use them to get from A to B and, provided they look after their car and know what they're doing, do so successfully 99% of the time.

So, I'll ask again. Who is right out of the three categories of people I mention above? The majority, (Windows users) because they're the majority? The BMW and Mercedes owners (Mac users), because they pay a little bit more? Or the classic car owners (Linux users), because they like to be different?

I don't know the answer, but I do know this. On my drive to work every morning, I see a lot of normal family cars, and I see a lot of "prestige cars". But I very rarely see the classics and the kit cars. When I do see a Caterham or an old Mini go roaring past, it always makes me smile. It makes me want to ask them all about it. It even makes me want to look under the bonnet and see how it works. It doesn't make me want to beat the crap out of them for not buying a Nissan. 8)

Disclaimer: Windows XP is a good operating system, and I'm really looking forward to Vista. I also own two Macs and use SUSE and Ubuntu Linux. I've been using Linux for 7 years now, in fact. I was also a fanboy once.

[Lord Illidan]

It all depends on user mentality.

And those car analogies might be getting out of date. Linux is now getting above that clunky stage.

But I agree with you. There is no need to bash other people for which OS they use. If you want to promote Linux, mention it once, twice, if they show no interest, then STFU and continue. Don't harass.

[ajifans]

Nice analogy but can't agree with the Linux part of it.

Linux fits with the DIY element of classic and kit cars, however Linux is very stable so long as you don't use bleeding edge.

I'd classify Linux as simply 'other'; there are so many varieties that you can have your 'classic car' (works great on old machines); your kit car (completely build and compile yourself); your standard family car which is well supported and reliable (Enterprise distributions); and your prototype cars (bleeding edge distribtutions).

[Christmas]

IMO Kubuntu 6.06 is the best OS I have ever seen.

[reesclissold]

Oh dear, you've got me all wrong!

I'm a Computer Science student and I set myself the challenge of not having a Windows partition at all for the past twelve months... And managed it successfully. But sometimes I do have to admit to myself that Linux can be rough around the edges.

I also restore classic cars in my spare time, so maybe I'm just too critical of my own work. They say you're always your own worst critic!

Glad you both got my point though, my point was that people should be free to choose, and nobody is necessarily wrong or right. Maybe I chose to be a bit controversial about Linux because it would provoke more responses, much like my choice of title! :p

[sharkboy]

Thought I would make my first post a good 'un. Short time lurker, long time Linux fan here. Well, here we go...

First off, I think I should point out an important fact. There is no right answer in the Windows / Mac / Linux debate. No one has got it entirely right and no one has got it entirely wrong.
How is this a fact?



Let me explain using the power of analogy! [add echo effect]

On my drive to work every day I see lots of different cars. Fords, Vauxhalls, Peugeots, Nissans, Hondas, and so on. I'm pretty sure almost every single person I see driving their car had their own reasons for choosing it, and their own reasons for believing it was a better option than the alternatives. I'm sure most of them are pretty happy with their car just the way it is, and would get pretty defensive if someone else came along and started spouting off about how they're an idiot for driving what they drive.

But, from what we know about the software world, surely some of them are wrong? Surely only one type of car has got it "right" and owners of other cars are all idiots who are just going against the flow because they're stubborn? Of course, we all know that isn't true. But if it is true for software, as is the general opinion, why isn't it true for cars? Because every person has their own needs when it comes to buying a car. Everyone has their own needs when it comes to everything. Why the hell should operating systems be any different?

Let's investigate the car analogy a bit further, and see what, if anything, we can learn from it.

Windows users are like the huge majority of car owners. They like something functional, good value for money, with a good dealer network if something goes wrong. They like to get their car from a company which won't disappear into thin air tomorrow, because they like to rely on the fact that, for the time they own the car, it will continue to be all of the above things to them. These are normal, sensible people, who are well aware that other options exist, but as far as they are concerned, there are just more important things in life than worrying about their car.

Mac users are like the BMW and Mercedes owners of the world. It's a fact that BMW and Mercedes make good cars, no matter what your opinion is of them. Yes, they're pretty much the same as the cars the people in the above category buy, but they're a bit better put together, the dealers have a closer relationship with the buyers, and the manufacturers like to put a bit more effort into making their cars look a little bit nicer, cleaner, and "different". That's what attracts a certain breed of buyer to their cars in the first place, a breed of buyer willing to pay a premium for these things.

Linux users are like classic car and kit car owners. They like the thrill of the olden days of motoring when you could open the bonnet and re-gap the points. They like their cars a bit clunky and a bit temperamental, and they call it "character". Sure, it's harder to find the help and the parts they might need to keep their classic car running, but as time goes on they learn lots of little tricks that make living with these cars a bit easier. Their owners still use them to get from A to B and, provided they look after their car and know what they're doing, do so successfully 99% of the time.

So, I'll ask again. Who is right out of the three categories of people I mention above? The majority, (Windows users) because they're the majority? The BMW and Mercedes owners (Mac users), because they pay a little bit more? Or the classic car owners (Linux users), because they like to be different?

I don't know the answer, but I do know this. On my drive to work every morning, I see a lot of normal family cars, and I see a lot of "prestige cars". But I very rarely see the classics and the kit cars. When I do see a Caterham or an old Mini go roaring past, it always makes me smile. It makes me want to ask them all about it. It even makes me want to look under the bonnet and see how it works. It doesn't make me want to beat the crap out of them for not buying a Nissan. 8)

Disclaimer: Windows XP is a good operating system, and I'm really looking forward to Vista. I also own two Macs and use SUSE and Ubuntu Linux. I've been using Linux for 7 years now, in fact. I was also a fanboy once.

The classifications in your analogy can of course be discussed, but I think the main issue with your whole approach is that it presumes that there are only practical reasons and matters of taste to the choice of a car -- and hence to the choice of operative system. What about pollution and the environment? What about the working conditions in the factories where the cars are made? What about contributing to a monopoly by your choice of car? There are many questions of simliar kind that can be asked, but in relation to your post they can be boiled down to one: Is it always ok to do something just because it's practical for you or you feel like it? We're not autonomous, inherently free individuals, but social beings with a responsability to others. Freedom is more complicated than classic liberalism will have it, since you act in a socially conditioned situation and what you do affects the person next to you. In that perspective, I think you fill find it hard to deny that GNU/Linux is indeed a much better choice that windows and mac.

[G Morgan]

Nice analogy but can't agree with the Linux part of it.

Linux fits with the DIY element of classic and kit cars, however Linux is very stable so long as you don't use bleeding edge.

I'd classify Linux as simply 'other'; there are so many varieties that you can have your 'classic car' (works great on old machines); your kit car (completely build and compile yourself); your standard family car which is well supported and reliable (Enterprise distributions); and your prototype cars (bleeding edge distribtutions).

I have to agree, Ubuntu isn't clunky or a kit distribution as standard. In fact Windows is more of a kit OS at that point because you have to select and install each app and driver by hand.

Linux is choice, if you want a windowsesque point and click distro there is Mepis and Linspire. If you want user friendliness of the Linux breed (i.e. without sacrificing that which makes Linux good) then you can run Ubuntu among others. There are also great server Distros and there are kit like distros like Slack and Gentoo which you can turn into whatever you want.

Windows has many flaws, the pairing of Microsofts lax attitude to security with the general inexperience of Windows user is a killer combo which has put a huge strain on the internet. You aren't entitled to support with Windows as a right of purchase so people should stop pretending you are. You can get service for a price but you can with Linux as well.

To be honest I have no problem with Macs apart from the fact they're overpriced (and BMWs aren't overpriced, they are worth every penny of the expense because they are better in a very real way, Mac hardware isn't any better than PC hardware generally, the difference is the OS). Apple are different and are as difficult a company as MS given the DRM.

[reesclissold]

IMO Kubuntu 6.06 is the best OS I have ever seen.

Hmm, I'm having trouble deciding. Ubuntu is definatley by far one of the best distros I've seen, but I'm still undecided as to whether I prefer Gnome, KDE, or XFCE. If you asked me a year ago, I'd have said KDE, but since I've moved away from using SUSE just lately I'm not so sure.

[reesclissold]

How is this a fact?



The classifications in your analogy can of course be discussed, but I think the main issue with your whole approach is that it presumes that there are only practical reasons and matters of taste to the choice of a car -- and hence to the choice of operative system. What about pollution and the environment? What about the working conditions in the factories where the cars are made? What about contributing to a monopoly by your choice of car? There are many questions of simliar kind that can be asked, but in relation to your post they can be boiled down to one: Is it always ok to do something just because it's practical for you or you feel like it? We're not autonomous, inherently free individuals, but social beings with a responsability to others. Freedom is more complicated than classic liberalism will have it, since you act in a socially conditioned situation and what you do affects the person next to you. In that perspective, I think you fill find it hard to deny that GNU/Linux is indeed a much better choice that windows and mac.

Interesting. I've never been much of a sociologist, I definately tend to see the whole argument from the tehcnical and practical sides.

Incidentally, if Linux did "bring down" Microsoft or Apple, a lot of people would lose their jobs, and a lot of other industries would collapse, too. But like I said, I'm no sociologist.

[reesclissold]

I have to agree, Ubuntu isn't clunky or a kit distribution as standard. In fact Windows is more of a kit OS at that point because you have to select and install each app and driver by hand.

Linux is choice, if you want a windowsesque point and click distro there is Mepis and Linspire. If you want user friendliness of the Linux breed (i.e. without sacrificing that which makes Linux good) then you can run Ubuntu among others. There are also great server Distros and there are kit like distros like Slack and Gentoo which you can turn into whatever you want.

Windows has many flaws, the pairing of Microsofts lax attitude to security with the general inexperience of Windows user is a killer combo which has put a huge strain on the internet. You aren't entitled to support with Windows as a right of purchase so people should stop pretending you are. You can get service for a price but you can with Linux as well.

To be honest I have no problem with Macs apart from the fact they're overpriced (and BMWs aren't overpriced, they are worth every penny of the expense because they are better in a very real way, Mac hardware isn't any better than PC hardware generally, the difference is the OS). Apple are different and are as difficult a company as MS given the DRM.

Edit: Sorry, I think we're both arguing the same point here!

What I mean is, Windows is like, say, a Honda Civic. A Honda Civic is a Honda Civic, and they're all identical when they leave the factory. (Ignoring different variations like the diesel or the Type-R for a minute)

Linux is more of a platform which other companies build their car around, and as a result the cars that come out at the end of it are very different from each other.

[RajivNair]

probably yall can make up ur minds after listening to this :-

http://fun.fourecks.de/sounds/Every_OS_sucks.mp3

[bruce89]

I imagine that you won't get an imparsial opinion on a Linux forum!

[reesclissold]

I imagine that you won't get an imparsial opinion on a Linux forum!

I was just starting to think that myself... No wonder Linux users have a reputation! Maybe I should go back to avoiding all forums.

[reesclissold]

probably yall can make up ur minds after listening to this :-

http://fun.fourecks.de/sounds/Every_OS_sucks.mp3

I don't know if you read my origianl post, but that does actually back up my theory that a computer is just a device used to do a job, and the choice of operating system really isn't important if it's right for you... They really do all suck, I never saw it that way! :lol:

[sharkboy]

Interesting. I've never been much of a sociologist, I definately tend to see the whole argument from the tehcnical and practical sides.

Incidentally, if Linux did "bring down" Microsoft or Apple, a lot of people would lose their jobs, and a lot of other industries would collapse, too. But like I said, I'm no sociologist.

You don't have to be a sociologist to be able to see the ethical aspects of your choices. And your job argument is flawed. Compare it to this statement, and you will see it: 'If there were no wars, a lot of people would lose their jobs, and a lot of industries would collapse, too.' Besides, you don't just create a hole without creating at the same time the opportunity to fill it.

[reesclissold]

You don't have to be a sociologist to be able to see the ethical aspects of your choices. And your job argument is flawed. Compare it to this statement, and you will see it: 'If there were no wars, a lot of people would lose their jobs, and a lot of industries would collapse, too.' Besides, you don't just create a hole without creating at the same time the opportunity to fill it.

Food for thought.

[Mr_J_]

I'm sorry to say I didn't read your posts, but the OS is always suited towards a task, or a set of tasks.

The rule of thumb I usually use is!
- If the user is willing, the computer works, and Windows is not an absolute necessity, then use Ubuntu.

[Rhapsody]

Windows users are like the huge majority of car owners. They like something functional, good value for money, with a good dealer network if something goes wrong.
I laughed at that. I literally laughed at that, and I don't do that often. Windows may be functional, pretty, easy-to-use, but it is certainly not good value for money. Kubuntu cost me all of one CD-R, and it came with almost everything I needed already installed. When I think about what Windows Vista Home Premium and Microsoft Office 2007 will cost, I find the concept of that being value for money absolutely ridiculous.


Incidentally, if Linux did "bring down" Microsoft or Apple, a lot of people would lose their jobs, and a lot of other industries would collapse, too. But like I said, I'm no sociologist.
I've thought about this too. I use MAME a lot, and it just so happens that Aaron Giles (current maintainer of the project) works for Microsoft. If the company folded, he'd be (at least temporarily) out of a job, and I don't like the prospect of that.

[Lord Illidan]

Well..


Incidentally, if Linux did "bring down" Microsoft or Apple, a lot of people would lose their jobs, and a lot of other industries would collapse, too. But like I said, I'm no sociologist.


We are still a long way off from bringing Microsoft or Apple down. Also, there is a shortage of developers these days, they will find other jobs.

Other industries collapsing? Like the DRM industry? Now that will be the day!

[bruce89]

I laughed at that. I literally laughed at that, and I don't do that often. Windows may be functional, pretty, easy-to-use, but it is certainly not good value for money. Kubuntu cost me all of one CD-R, and it came with almost everything I needed already installed. When I think about what Windows Vista Home Premium and Microsoft Office 2007 will cost, I find the concept of that being value for money absolutely ridiculous.
Yes, it is pretty expensive for a buggy kernel plus a few runtime libraries.

[G Morgan]

Edit: Sorry, I think we're both arguing the same point here!

What I mean is, Windows is like, say, a Honda Civic. A Honda Civic is a Honda Civic, and they're all identical when they leave the factory. (Ignoring different variations like the diesel or the Type-R for a minute)

Linux is more of a platform which other companies build their car around, and as a result the cars that come out at the end of it are very different from each other.

I don't think we are arguing the same point. Quite simply you can't talk about Linux as a single entity, to do so would be the same as lumping all the Windows NT based OSes together since they all share the same kernel. By that measure NT 3.5, Win 2000, Win XP, Win Server 2003 (even Vista now they've pulled a double reverse and gone for a NT based kernel again) etc are all the same OS since they all have as much in common as Ubuntu and DSL have i.e. the same kernel. In reality Ubuntu and DSL are far more different than Windows XP is from Windows 2000 and are different OSes.

There are drop in solutions using the Linux kernel, many Distros can be used out of the box by Joe Public as easily (if not easier given out of the box hardware compatibility and preinstalled apps) as Windows. Ubuntu for example installs a full OS and DE with an office suite, a browser, an IM client, a full media suite, (though not the codecs, Windows only has full support for MS formats out of the box, you have to update for full MP3 support, running automatix is quite easy as the Ubuntu solution) your games, a firewall and an image editor with comperable power to corperate alternatives all from the standard install along with support for 80% of hardware out there. Windows doesn't come close to that level of completeness and indeed you generally spend almost an extra full day installing all the stuff I've listed above as well as all your anti malware stuff and running an incredibly inefficient update system that requires a lifetime of reboots because its hacked in rather than being designed well. It's simply a pain and takes far too much time then tends to break far too easily.

Yes there are kit OSes based on Linux but the number of good complete solutions is on the rise and a lot of them are stable and feature complete. Linspire (which I don't like but) even includes crossover office so you can install MS Office with relative ease.

I'm not saying that a large section of Linux isn't about the things you mention. It's just that Linux is very diverse, far more than Windows or Macintosh. You have the choice to have a just works distro, if you choose Gentoo then you've opted for a kit car. Choose Ubuntu and its ready to go on the road from purchase (at least far more so than Windows which takes forever to lock down before we get into installing 101 apps that don't come with Windows).

Essentially what I'm saying is that to talk about Linux in a general sense is as fruitless as is talking about Windows is a general sense. I could say that Windows BSOD's every 60 minutes (and 9x did) and it would be just as relevant as saying that Linux doesn't support wireless cards at all because Slackware doesn't have them out of the box while Ubuntu has reasonably good support for them since 6.06.

[rai4shu2]

Since this is the Ubuntu forums, I'm going to say without hesitation that Ubuntu is the best OS. :p

[bored2k]

The best operating system is the one that works for you. In my case, that's Microsoft Windows and Arch Linux. For you that could be Ubuntu 6.06, Mac OS X or Solaris. It's just a matter of finding your "OS mate".

[General_Ts0]

I'll take the car analogy into a different context but I'll buy what you've said so far.

To me Windows users are like kids who like to play with HeMan, Ninja Turtles and etc action figures--pre-made, popular, can only do what it's designed to do). I don't' have much experience with mac users other than graphics guys but they go home and are Linux users. Linux users are the Lego, home-lab and such users--pre-made 'blocks' that can be used to build something else altogether but if you don't know what you're doing you're going to just crash the kingdom you tried to build and start over.

Linux is oh-so-powerful, yes. But the world grew up on Windows and even still the community always wants to know what is the Windows equivalent of "this" in Linux.

Linux has a long way to go and before it ever takes over the consumer arena, we're going to have to narrow it down to a few distributions to rally behind vs. the 100(?) distros we have today (and I do get why, I'm also a Backtrack2/Helix user). Meanwhile, it'll continue to flourish in the Enterprise space and have small victories from time to time with consumers (like the considerable momentum push and jazz that Ubuntu has brought in the past year both by itself and with Dell.)

[SunnyRabbiera]

well all operating systems are the best at what they do.
Windows is the best at ease of use, has the most programs, applications and drivers made for it.
OSX is the best for looks, is relatively easy once you get to its interface and it tends to have a good stability rating from its users.
Linux is the best for customization, options and its stability and security is second to none (though BSD is probably better in stability due to it not using possibly unstable drivers)
BSD as said above is said to be the most stable OS out there, it too shares the ability of customization and options as linux does.
For me Linux is the best OS I have been on so far, even though its not supported by many companies linux is a growing entity and potentially can take the market if given the chance.

[Kowalski_GT-R]

It doesn't make me want to beat the crap out of them for not buying a Nissan. 8)




Found myself making the same considerations that reesclissold originally made.
Strangely enough, I approached Linux in the quest for stability and lack of viruses, and ended up appreciating the lower hardware requirements the most.

O/T...

...what's wrong with Nissans anyway? :):) (see nickname...)