PDA

View Full Version : Why Linux is better than Windows ??



ddhazxiao
January 8th, 2008, 07:24 PM
Can some one plz tell me?

perlluver
January 8th, 2008, 07:26 PM
No adware, viruses. Faster, more stable. Programs are easy to find. Add/Remove programs actually does just that. Free, open source, free updates every 6 months to a newer version.

cnr437
January 8th, 2008, 07:27 PM
because it is linux

rhc
January 8th, 2008, 07:28 PM
Because you will write here and someone will answer.
Always there ll be someone here.
As a newbie i can say this.

LowSky
January 8th, 2008, 07:29 PM
its not that one or the other is better, its about preference... windows is good for some things, linux is good at others.

For instance
linux excels at virus protection and customization and faster new release cycles

Microsoft excels at compatability with software and hardware and ease of function for users due to little changes to menus and file system in 15 years.

Linuxratty
January 8th, 2008, 07:33 PM
You don't have to pay money to a corporation than has more money than some countries.
No WGA and no DRM.
You can install Linux on as many machines as you want,as often as you want...No one tells you what you can and cannot do with the software.

freesitebuilder
January 8th, 2008, 07:37 PM
This has a lot of helpful information:
http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/

ddhazxiao
January 8th, 2008, 07:41 PM
live with it...:mad:
Why do we need cross platform! Why not jus one platform!

antisocialist
January 8th, 2008, 07:43 PM
FREE tech support, no $5 a minute crap you get from microsoft, no viruses, adware, antivirus or antiadware programs that slow your computer down, its free, all its software is free, the add/remove programs thing actually allows you to add programs and not just remove them, software is open source usually (which is good if you are a programmer), you can easily do things via the terminal, linux is more stable and doesnt need to be restarted every day, linux has a word processor that is recommended by java [ go to http://www.java.com/ and you will see on the left a picture that say java recommends openoffice.org word processor ], you don't have to use those stupid serial things that take at least 3 tries to type in correctly, you dont have to pay money one of the worlds top 10 richest companies, you can use it on as many computers as you want, as much and often as you want, the installer takes only about 20-30 minutes to install, and you dont have to spend an extra 3 hours installing "service pack 2", you can easily run a virtual machine of windows to test windows programs [ if you are a programmer ]. if you want more reasons I can tell you them, but that should have given you enough reasons to switch to windows, and if you need more just email me pm me or post here



Microsoft excels at compatability with software and hardware and ease of function for users due to little changes to menus and file system in 15 years.they asked for why linux is better, so they want you to tell them good things about linux, not good things about windows

jeffus_il
January 8th, 2008, 07:50 PM
This has a lot of helpful information:
http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/
Nice page!
I was going to start a lengthy tirade!
Better in pictures.
Thanks

vikram
January 8th, 2008, 07:51 PM
lots of reasons which GNU/Linux is better


- more customizable it can run everything from small embedded devices to mainframe. this also means more choices to the user.
- better security and lack of malware
- the price
- freedom to use, inspect, modify and distribute changes. see http://www.fsf.org/
- lack of DRM
- more stable and robust system. for examples fewever reboots, dont need to reinstall OS every year.
- better support. can you get a forum like this for Windows ?

see
http://www.getgnulinux.org/
for more reasons


for more details


see

dgoodma
January 8th, 2008, 07:53 PM
Better? Not sure I would say that; just a different target.

For example, one of my machines is an older laptop that had Windows 2000 on. It was becoming almost unusable. Too long to boot, too slow to do anything. Then I put Xubuntu on it, and I have a usable laptop.

On the other hand, I just bought a new Vista laptop for my wife. Since I am her tech support, and she had been using Windows XP, I used the KISS principle, and gave her what she was used to.

My main PC is still Windows XP Media Center. Things that would concern me about changing that to Linux: I like Quicken, TurboTax, programs to do Pictures, some video editing, my Zune sync. Perhaps these functions could be done with Linux, but might require more fiddling that I want to do right now.

On my Work Laptop, I have it dual-booting XP and Ubuntu, because I like to "play" sometimes, without messing up my Work PC functions. I can do most, like 98% of what I need on the Linux side at work, but I don't see our company moving to Linux on the desk; but we have lots of Linux servers. I work in the IT department supporting the Active Directory environment, so I still need "Windows Apps" designed for that.

Perhaps I just like to have choices, and select what seems to fit the use required.

SomeGuyDude
January 8th, 2008, 07:56 PM
Let's think.

1) Free.

2) Far more customizable.

3) Free.

4) No virus/spyware (even if this is because of its unpopularity, the fact remains).

5) Free.

6) Massive amount of choice between distros for all skill levels and tastes.

Not to mention that, but it's free!

MONODA
January 8th, 2008, 08:03 PM
This has a lot of helpful information:
http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/
I love that site. It is what made me find out about linux:):):)

Hairball600
January 8th, 2008, 09:50 PM
This has a lot of helpful information:
http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/

Yikes! I accidentally posted twice!

Hairball600
January 8th, 2008, 09:51 PM
This has a lot of helpful information:
http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/

You know, you could just use OS X.:guitar: And don't even think about saying Linux is better than OS X unless you can give a very valid argument.:)

No offense intended.

Steveway
January 8th, 2008, 09:59 PM
OSX is just a hacked together Mach/BSD Frankenstein-monster.
It's driven by a company that could be called even more closed-source then Microsoft.
You need to pay for security-updates and it promotes DRM-infested music.
It costs a lot of money, and you need to buy Hardware from the same manufacturer to get the OS.
You are not allowed to install the OS anywhere else.
Look I gave you more than one very valid argument.
OSX is no match for freedom.

Hightide
January 8th, 2008, 10:00 PM
Why can't software be free (linux) as well as for profit (MS)? Different philosphy behind the open source movement which i am attracted to even though I am still a XP user!

:lolflag:

antisocialist
January 8th, 2008, 10:01 PM
linux is better than OS X
linux is free, and can be legally used on any computer that linux has HW driver support on

OS X can only be run legally on a mac, and a decent mac is about $2000 which is way to much for a computer that crashes all the time. however, i do like that OS X uses firefox :p

personally i dislike windows and OS X, but i dual boot xp for select compatibility reasons

twright
January 8th, 2008, 10:04 PM
http://badvista.fsf.org/

this sideshow by Microsoft about their DRM systems explains it better than i could possibly hope to:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/8/f/98f3fe47-dfc3-4e74-92a3-088782200fe7/TWEN05006_WinHEC05.ppt

hyper_ch
January 8th, 2008, 10:05 PM
Linux is better than Windows?
I don't believe that...

oldb0y
January 8th, 2008, 10:05 PM
Can some one plz tell me?

What is best for you, and what is best for me, is probably two very different things.
Why don't you just try it out for a bit? Doesn't cost you a penny:wink:

SomeGuyDude
January 8th, 2008, 10:15 PM
You know, you could just use OS X.:guitar: And don't even think about saying Linux is better than OS X unless you can give a very valid argument.:)

No offense intended.

Brand new more than adequate PC notebook: $400-450. Throw Linux on it and it's dynamite.

Brand new lowest-end Macbook: $1099.

New version of Ubuntu comes out: free and no need for new hardware.

New version of OSX comes out: $150 and I might need a new computer anyway.

If I'm going to have a system that's not compatible with 95% of the software out there it'd damn well better be cheap.

wwarsin
January 8th, 2008, 10:34 PM
idk if i should bring this up... but isnt the one of the reasons linux has better protection against virsues, spam, etc... only because people who make those focus on windows, because their are more windows users then linux users? and windows is used more in corporate enviroments....

but i would have to say linux is better, how, its free (as a bunch other people have posted), you can find just as much support for ubuntu as microsofts products... theres more things you can do with linux then with windows....

Hairball600
January 8th, 2008, 10:36 PM
linux is better than OS X
linux is free, and can be legally used on any computer that linux has HW driver support on

OS X can only be run legally on a mac, and a decent mac is about $2000 which is way to much for a computer that crashes all the time. however, i do like that OS X uses firefox :p

personally i dislike windows and OS X, but i dual boot xp for select compatibility reasons

Hahahahahahaha! Have you ever even used a Mac? Let's review the arguments. "Is your system unstable? I can leave Mac OS X running for weeks on end without a crash! "Freedom?" With Mac OS X, you follow the on-screen instructions and… it works! On Linux, you spend an hour trying to figure out how to partition the drive without erasing your data, and then halfway through the installation encounter an error! Security? First of all, Mac OS X does not make you pay for security updates, and everyone I've ever heard of using Mac OS X did not have security problems. "A decent Mac is about $2000? What website did you visit? I got a VERY decent Mac for $500! And what about this free support? Where can I find that? Sorry if this all sounds rude, but after trying for hours to get Ubuntu to work, and hearing about how easy it is, and how much better it is than OS X, I'm a little frustrated, and so far, noone has provided a valid reason why it is better. Oh, and with Mac OS X, you may have to pay for it, but it works, and I'm happy to pay for something if it works.

Very sorry if anyone is offended.

rune0077
January 8th, 2008, 10:47 PM
Hahahahahahaha! Have you ever even used a Mac? Let's review the arguments. "Is your system unstable? I can leave Mac OS X running for weeks on end without a crash! "Freedom?" With Mac OS X, you follow the on-screen instructions andů it works! On Linux, you spend an hour trying to figure out how to partition the drive without erasing your data, and then halfway through the installation encounter an error! Security? First of all, Mac OS X does not make you pay for security updates, and everyone I've ever heard of using Mac OS X did not have security problems. "A decent Mac is about $2000? What website did you visit? I got a VERY decent Mac for $500! And what about this free support? Where can I find that? Sorry if this all sounds rude, but after trying for hours to get Ubuntu to work, and hearing about how easy it is, and how much better it is than OS X, I'm a little frustrated, and so far, noone has provided a valid reason why it is better. Oh, and with Mac OS X, you may have to pay for it, but it works, and I'm happy to pay for something if it works.

Very sorry if anyone is offended.

It's just a matter of choice. Each to his own. I'll pick Linux over OS X any day of the week. Hell, I'll pick Vista over OS X any day of the week as well. So I primarily use Linux, and every once in a while, when I feel like playing a game or when I need to use my netbank account (which refuses to work in Linux, thanks to my bank) I boot in Vista, and people would have to pay me alot of money to ever consider an Apple product. So Linux and Vista is the right choice for me. You obviously prefer OS X, so you should choose that. All modern operating systems has good sides, and aspects that makes them cool, and they all have bad sides and aspects that makes them suck as well. So chose the one that suits your tastes, and it really doesn't matter if it's the one or the other.

jrusso2
January 8th, 2008, 10:53 PM
You don't have to pay money to a corporation than has more money than some countries.
No WGA and no DRM.
You can install Linux on as many machines as you want,as often as you want...No one tells you what you can and cannot do with the software.

Unless you want to log in as root. then everyone jumps on your case.

A lot of distros make it very difficult to do and please spare me the lame explanations of why its bad its still up to the user.

rune0077
January 8th, 2008, 10:56 PM
A lot of distros make it very difficult to do and please spare me the lame explanations of why its bad its still up to the user.

Unless you're on a network, then it's up to the sysadmin:)

antisocialist
January 8th, 2008, 11:21 PM
Hahahahahahaha! Have you ever even used a Mac? Let's review the arguments. "Is your system unstable? I can leave Mac OS X running for weeks on end without a crash! "Freedom?" With Mac OS X, you follow the on-screen instructions andů it works! On Linux, you spend an hour trying to figure out how to partition the drive without erasing your data, and then halfway through the installation encounter an error! Security? First of all, Mac OS X does not make you pay for security updates, and everyone I've ever heard of using Mac OS X did not have security problems. "A decent Mac is about $2000? What website did you visit? I got a VERY decent Mac for $500! And what about this free support? Where can I find that? Sorry if this all sounds rude, but after trying for hours to get Ubuntu to work, and hearing about how easy it is, and how much better it is than OS X, I'm a little frustrated, and so far, noone has provided a valid reason why it is better. Oh, and with Mac OS X, you may have to pay for it, but it works, and I'm happy to pay for something if it works.

Very sorry if anyone is offended.
linux has no need for security updates, not only because of low popularity, but because there are so many distributions that it would take an incredibly skilled hacker to make a virus adaptable enough to work on all distributions, especially considering the different filesystems, desktop environments, and different configurations and setups. theres also the different kernel versions.

ok so here is the other stuff about why mac sucks
support - you can call them for tech support, or you can ask on the forums, or you can visit the documentation site ( help.ubuntu.org )
the partitioner worked just fine for me, and if you are having all these problems with data loss i would think that;
1 you would have backed up your hard drive LIKE SUGGESTED before installing
2 you would of resized your partition with gparted before installing ubuntu, therefore allowing you to have an error in your install and not corrupt your entire hard drive
3 i will give you that mac has good support, via email it takes 1-2 days to get a first reply. but it is there, i was having some huge pains with itunes+ipod and they got everything fixed for me, so i give mac points on support as well as linux

is your system stable
1 i have left my computer running 4 months straight without a problem, i think at the one year mark i might restart just for the fun of it
2 on my school computers (they are all mac computers) they crash all the time, sure they are on a large network, but at any given time at least 5-10 of them are crashed, at one point both computer labs had crashed and some other mac's at the school were still working

3 linux doesnt need to be restarted other than after certain and very select system updates, such as the kernel or grub.

freedom

1 with linux you have all the freedom in the whole wide world, you can get the source code FREE of your own FREE will and modify it FREEly to your hearts content.
2 with mac you get merely the operating system, no source code, so you have almost no freedom, macs are less customizable, and you can't modify the source code so that it your operating system will fit your needs, and you dont get the freedom of choosing what type of desktop environment you want, they force you to take it how it is or just dont use mac.

price

1 there is one distro of linux that costs money, and it is 30 bucks, which is almost nothing

2 there is one price for OS X and that is 150 bucks, thats 5 times the price of the most expensive linux distro, and you will probably need to buy a new computer in order to use it, or do a bunch of upgrading.

the computer itself

1 buying a new apple brand computer, as cheap as possible, costs 1099

2 buying a brand new decent linux computer can cost 300, sometimes less

any questions?

Hairball600
January 8th, 2008, 11:57 PM
linux has no need for security updates, not only because of low popularity, but because there are so many distributions that it would take an incredibly skilled hacker to make a virus adaptable enough to work on all distributions, especially considering the different filesystems, desktop environments, and different configurations and setups. theres also the different kernel versions.

ok so here is the other stuff about why mac sucks
support - you can call them for tech support, or you can ask on the forums, or you can visit the documentation site ( help.ubuntu.org )
the partitioner worked just fine for me, and if you are having all these problems with data loss i would think that;
1 you would have backed up your hard drive LIKE SUGGESTED before installing
2 you would of resized your partition with gparted before installing ubuntu, therefore allowing you to have an error in your install and not corrupt your entire hard drive
3 i will give you that mac has good support, via email it takes 1-2 days to get a first reply. but it is there, i was having some huge pains with itunes+ipod and they got everything fixed for me, so i give mac points on support as well as linux

is your system stable
1 i have left my computer running 4 months straight without a problem, i think at the one year mark i might restart just for the fun of it
2 on my school computers (they are all mac computers) they crash all the time, sure they are on a large network, but at any given time at least 5-10 of them are crashed, at one point both computer labs had crashed and some other mac's at the school were still working

3 linux doesnt need to be restarted other than after certain and very select system updates, such as the kernel or grub.

freedom

1 with linux you have all the freedom in the whole wide world, you can get the source code FREE of your own FREE will and modify it FREEly to your hearts content.
2 with mac you get merely the operating system, no source code, so you have almost no freedom, macs are less customizable, and you can't modify the source code so that it your operating system will fit your needs, and you dont get the freedom of choosing what type of desktop environment you want, they force you to take it how it is or just dont use mac.

price

1 there is one distro of linux that costs money, and it is 30 bucks, which is almost nothing

2 there is one price for OS X and that is 150 bucks, thats 5 times the price of the most expensive linux distro, and you will probably need to buy a new computer in order to use it, or do a bunch of upgrading.

the computer itself

1 buying a new apple brand computer, as cheap as possible, costs 1099

2 buying a brand new decent linux computer can cost 300, sometimes less

any questions?

Two words. Mac Mini. I did not lose any data with the linux install, but the partitioner is still hard to use. Like I said, Mac OS X costs money, but you get something that works out of the box. With linux, you have to google all over the place, type in commands in Terminal which make no sense to you. With my problem right now, I can;t access the internet. Here's the procedure. Google around until I find a little snippet, and reboot into linux, and do what the instructions say. They don't work, and are often incnsistent, so I reboot into OS X and find something else. It doesn't work again, so I have to reboot. With OS X, you insert the installation disc and click the install button. Voila! it works! I'll take OS X over linux anyday, even if I do have to pay 150 bucks because it works!

crjackson
January 9th, 2008, 01:03 AM
I'll take OS X over linux anyday, even if I do have to pay 150 bucks because it works!

Dude, then please do just that. I'm a new Ubuntu user and it works great for me. I have 3 Macs at home and I feel they suck. They are sitting on a storage shelf in my pool house. I have 10 (yes 10) sysems running in my house. Each has very different hardware and each is running Ubuntu 7.10.

Two of my system boot both xp/Ubuntu (My wife's school laptop and my video editing machine). Both of those system only boot MS for specific applications, and seldom at that.

If you hate Linux so much, then just stick with what you love and leave the rest of us alone.

antisocialist
January 9th, 2008, 02:19 AM
you used your two words saying to words, i ignored the rest since you said in your first two words that the only important part is the first two words

inversekinetix
January 9th, 2008, 04:54 AM
I have linux but I want to play crysis, it wont work, linux is not better. I have XP and need to defrag, I don't in linux, linux is better. I have a new custom pc, I can install both on windows and linux on it, I can't install OSx on it, linux and windows are both better than mac. What is the point of thread? I can't tell whether the thread title is a statement or a question.
fried chicken is better than roasted chicken?

stalker145
January 9th, 2008, 02:58 PM
My personal take on why Linux is better than Windows is this:

What happened in the open source community when the OLPC (http://laptop.org/) project was announced? There were oooh's and ahhh's heard 'round the world as programmers began tailoring their wares to fit the meager hardware.

What happened in Microsoft?
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/06/2049201
http://www.informationweek.com/hardware/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=204701926
http://itnews.com.au/News/66442,microsoft-wants-ne-laptop-per-child-system-to-run-windows-xp.aspx

Microsoft actually had the gall to ask a non-profit organization who is trying to keep prices as low as possible to tailor the hardware to meet their software requirements instead of vice-versa.

Why couldn't Mr. Gates steer his company toward being more generous as so many people point out that he is?

antisocialist
January 9th, 2008, 09:20 PM
they all have there ups (except mac) and there downs.

there is only a "better" os in someones oppionion

someone once said in a post somewhere, that to say windows is just for gaming is like saying linux is just for servers, you need windows for compatibility too

mdsmedia
January 13th, 2008, 03:23 AM
You know, you could just use OS X.:guitar: And don't even think about saying Linux is better than OS X unless you can give a very valid argument.:)

No offense intended.No offense taken.

Linux is better than OS X.

There.

No offense intended.

twright
January 13th, 2008, 11:37 AM
if i were to buy a mac i would spend hours installing dawin ports (inkscape, gnome etc) but i have already spent hours making ubuntu look more like OSX

it seems like whichever i install i would end up tweaked into basically the same thing except that linux is much more tweakable than OSX so it works better for me

btw:
there is no way windows or a OSX could look this good (i did use OSX icons and backgrounds)
http://ubuntuforums.org/g/images/376954/large/1_Screenshot-3.png

rune0077
January 13th, 2008, 01:24 PM
You can get a cube desktop for Vista. It looks really great, judging by the demos, but obviously it cost money.

antisocialist
January 13th, 2008, 09:09 PM
No offense taken.

Linux is better than OS X.

There.

No offense intended.

short, quick, and to the point.
i like your style :)

antisocialist
January 13th, 2008, 09:09 PM
You can get a cube desktop for Vista. It looks really great, judging by the demos, but obviously it cost money.

not as good as compiz, and the one for vista only gives you the cube, none of the other effects

rune0077
January 13th, 2008, 09:18 PM
not as good as compiz, and the one for vista only gives you the cube, none of the other effects

I kindda thought it looked better and smoother on Vista. But your right, it's just the cube, still lots of effects missing.

Am I the only one who thinks that Vista's live-folders are just about the greatest thing to happen to filemanagers? I want to see something like that in Ubuntu.

antisocialist
January 13th, 2008, 09:21 PM
I kindda thought it looked better and smoother on Vista. But your right, it's just the cube, still lots of effects missing.

Am I the only one who thinks that Vista's live-folders are just about the greatest thing to happen to filemanagers? I want to see something like that in Ubuntu.

yes, you are the ONLY one who thinks microsoft did something well

rune0077
January 13th, 2008, 09:25 PM
yes, you are the ONLY one who thinks microsoft did something well

Oh, I think Microsoft does most thing well. They make great OS's (at least XP & Vista) that has always run flawlessly for me on my computers. Just too bad they charge money for it, and don't give me access to the source code, which is why I only use them when I absolutely have to. Other than that, I have no gripe with Windows.

CCNA_student
January 13th, 2008, 09:27 PM
yes, you are the ONLY one who thinks microsoft did something well

Not true, Microsloth can do some things right, they just mess up a lot of important things though too.

antisocialist
January 13th, 2008, 09:28 PM
Oh, I think Microsoft does most thing well. They make great OS's (at least XP & Vista) that has always run flawlessly for me on my computers. Just too bad they charge money for it, and don't give me access to the source code, which is why I only use them when I absolutely have to.

did you forget to leave out the "on 4 gigs of ram dual core processor" part after the always run flawlessly part? yes you did

i would say that they made halo, halo 2, and halo 3 well, but they didnt make them, bungie did

however, i can say honestly that their tech support sucks horribly, and that there 360 is awesome

seriously tho there OS's suck

antisocialist
January 13th, 2008, 09:30 PM
oh also, my list of why linux is better is attached, if you have anything to add please tell me.

antisocialist
January 13th, 2008, 09:32 PM
Not true, Microsloth can do some things right, they just mess up a lot of important things though too.

thats true, they did manage to make an operating system that runs (for a few hours and then crashes) and they also manage to make something a server can crash on wait i mean run on.....

rune0077
January 13th, 2008, 09:32 PM
did you forget to leave out the "on 4 gigs of ram dual core processor" part after the always run flawlessly part? yes you did


I didn't forget to say it. I said "on my computer" and my computer has 4 gigs and a dual core, so yes, it runs great. Judging from other peoples reactions, I would never try running Vista on anything less.



however, i can say honestly that their tech support sucks horribly


That's what I hear. Luckily, I never needed it.

CCNA_student
January 13th, 2008, 09:35 PM
thats true, they did manage to make an operating system that runs (for a few hours and then crashes) and they also manage to make something a server can crash on wait i mean run on.....

It took around a month for Windows to slow down, sputter, and die for me. The only way to keep Windows from screwing up too much is to not let it on the internet.

antisocialist
January 13th, 2008, 09:36 PM
I didn't forget to say it. I said "on my computer" and my computer has 4 gigs and a dual core, so yes, it runs great. Judging from other peoples reactions, I would never try running Vista on anything less.
then you did forget to leave it out, and if you are a person without a brand new computer vista does not work


That's what I hear. Luckily, I never needed it.

lucky you, i bugged them daily becuz windoze kept krashing

bufsabre666
January 13th, 2008, 09:36 PM
did you forget to leave out the "on 4 gigs of ram dual core processor" part after the always run flawlessly part? yes you did

the os world has to move on, you cant expect to be using old hardware forever, time to move on, my system runs it perfectly too

antisocialist
January 13th, 2008, 09:37 PM
i know, but thats pretty bad that my $5000 laptop from 4 yrs ago cant run windows
http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=56322&d=1200256409

bufsabre666
January 13th, 2008, 09:43 PM
depreciation of computer 4 years old that 5000$ laptop is now only worth like 300$, technology doubles every 18 months

antisocialist
January 13th, 2008, 09:45 PM
depreciation of computer 4 years old that 5000$ laptop is now only worth like 300$, technology doubles every 18 months

it can run compiz with all effects on, that alone is like 500$

rune0077
January 13th, 2008, 09:45 PM
i know, but thats pretty bad that my $5000 laptop from 4 yrs ago cant run windows
http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=56322&d=1200256409

That is bad, but it's the way of the world. Four years is a whole lifetime in hardware-years. The general assumption today is, that we change our hardware (computers, cellphones, mp3-players, etc, etc) at least once every two years. That's pretty messed up, since a two year old computer should still be fully functional, but that's how it is. If you want to run the latest Microsoft/Apple software and play the latest game, you have to keep up with that.

Good news is, if you don't want to, you don't have to keep up with it at all. Just install a Linux-distro, and even four year old hardware will run it smoothly (okay, maybe not four year old ATI-cards, but otherwise).

antisocialist
January 13th, 2008, 09:56 PM
That is bad, but it's the way of the world. Four years is a whole lifetime in hardware-years. The general assumption today is, that we change our hardware (computers, cellphones, mp3-players, etc, etc) at least once every two years. That's pretty messed up, since a two year old computer should still be fully functional, but that's how it is. If you want to run the latest Microsoft/Apple software and play the latest game, you have to keep up with that.

Good news is, if you don't want to, you don't have to keep up with it at all. Just install a Linux-distro, and even four year old hardware will run it smoothly (okay, maybe not four year old ATI-cards, but otherwise).

still, you would think that microsoft would make something that you dont have to buy a new computer or upgrade all your hw to buy, there are like 6 diff versions of windows vista, they should have made one for oldre computers

cegpope
January 14th, 2008, 09:39 PM
Just install a Linux-distro, and even four year old hardware will run it smoothly (okay, maybe not four year old ATI-cards, but otherwise).


I'm running Ubuntu a 5.3 year old Gateway with an ATI card in it with Compiz and many effects enabled (the ones I like) and everything runs quickly and smoothly; I'd love to see Microsoft convince Vista to do that.

rune0077
January 14th, 2008, 10:56 PM
I'm running Ubuntu a 5.3 year old Gateway with an ATI card in it with Compiz and many effects enabled (the ones I like) and everything runs quickly and smoothly; I'd love to see Microsoft convince Vista to do that.

Well try telling that to my ATI-card. Okay, it runs great now, but boy did it take my forever to get to where I can say that.

zipperback
January 14th, 2008, 11:05 PM
CNET rates Vista as one of the top ten worst tech products in the world for 2007.
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/0,39029552,49293700-10,00.htm

- zipperback
:popcorn:

zipperback
January 14th, 2008, 11:08 PM
Well try telling that to my ATI-card. Okay, it runs great now, but boy did it take my forever to get to where I can say that.


I have an ATI Radeon 1100 in my Laptop and It only took about 5 minutes to get the ATI driver installed and Compiz effects up and running correctly on Ubuntu Gutsy.

Ubuntu is great.

- zipperback
:popcorn:

tbroderick
January 15th, 2008, 12:14 AM
http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=56322&d=1200256409

Horrible list of reasons there. Most of them are inaccurate or way too optimistic.

antisocialist
January 15th, 2008, 01:13 AM
and which ones might those be?

tbroderick
January 15th, 2008, 01:44 AM
and which ones might those be?

http://pastebin.com/m167cbd0d

antisocialist
January 15th, 2008, 03:21 AM
ok, when was the last time you got a virus on linux?

Soldierboy
January 15th, 2008, 03:51 AM
With OS X, you insert the installation disc and click the install button. Voila! it works! I'll take OS X over linux anyday, even if I do have to pay 150 bucks because it works!

"It just works" because you bought a Mac that was designed and thoroughly tested with the OS. If you do the opposite, and find a computer that was designed and tested with Linux in mind, "it will just work". And go ahead and try to install OSX onto this machine, what's gonna happen? You'll have to configure, if you even can. I'm sorry but your argument -- DENIED.

akiratheoni
January 15th, 2008, 04:02 AM
idk if i should bring this up... but isnt the one of the reasons linux has better protection against virsues, spam, etc... only because people who make those focus on windows, because their are more windows users then linux users? and windows is used more in corporate enviroments....

Nope, the fact is that Windows and Linux are built differently. Windows was made as with a one computer per person philosophy and grants its user administrative rights. Linux (and Unix, since Linux is Unix-like) was built as a multi-user system from the start and so there are methods of allowing a user to have limited access so if a virus is activated, the virus cannot do system-wide damage.

tbroderick
January 15th, 2008, 05:48 AM
ok, when was the last time you got a virus on linux?

Just say there's less risk of viruses then Windows

rune0077
January 15th, 2008, 09:31 AM
Nope, the fact is that Windows and Linux are built differently. Windows was made as with a one computer per person philosophy and grants its user administrative rights. Linux (and Unix, since Linux is Unix-like) was built as a multi-user system from the start and so there are methods of allowing a user to have limited access so if a virus is activated, the virus cannot do system-wide damage.

That's the ideal version of Linux anyway, but it's not taking into account exploits and security holes in software and what not, that makes it perfectly possible to write viruses for Linux. Anybody with a thorough understanding of the *nix architecture could probably write a virus that did some damage to a Linux system, if he/she wanted to. The reason they don't want to, is because nobody much uses Linux. I'm pretty sure though, that if everybody who used Windows changed to Linux tomorrow, we'd also see thousands of viruses and malware getting into our systems in no time. Granted, the coders would have a harder time at it, but I doubt that would stop them.

pjkoczan
January 15th, 2008, 08:18 PM
idk if i should bring this up... but isnt the one of the reasons linux has better protection against virsues, spam, etc... only because people who make those focus on windows, because their are more windows users then linux users? and windows is used more in corporate enviroments....

but i would have to say linux is better, how, its free (as a bunch other people have posted), you can find just as much support for ubuntu as microsofts products... theres more things you can do with linux then with windows....

Beyond the whole multi-user vs. single-user and admin arguments. Linux doesn't open ports by default, doesn't grant execute permissions to everything by default (windows will happily execute anything with a .exe extension), and doesn't automatically run what you download (unlike early versions of Outlook).

A *lot* of non-default conditions would have to be true for a Linux virus to do any sort of damage. Probably the most damage potential comes from poor social engineering, which is a threat under any OS, and probably less of a threat under Linux because there's a lot less user's have to be socially engineered *not* to do. If a semi-savvy user is behind the keyboard, Linux is practically immune to virus/spywayre/adware threats.

antisocialist
January 15th, 2008, 08:28 PM
regardless, you do NOT need antivirus programs in linux, there are 11 viruses for linux last i checked, and the worst one could delete your documents folder *o wow i am scared now, i will lose stuff i have backed up on an external harddrive*

seriously though unless you grant a virus sudo rights then it is practically harmless, sure it could be an annoyance but to do any real damage it needs sudo rights

Hightide
January 15th, 2008, 08:39 PM
Can some one plz tell me?

because you have the freedom to share, freedom to access and change the source code, freedom to use.

Totally different philosophy!!
:)

twright
January 16th, 2008, 02:46 PM
linux is an attractive target,

almost every website not made by microsoft is running linux (or unix or bsd)

there is a more fundermental issue, linux systems tend to vary a lot so even if you did make a decent virus for linux you would have to package it for so many architectures and seeing as differnet distros ship with different software the program you exploit wouldn't be present on all of them

if you want to hack a linux server it is possible, but you have to do it yourself and most security holes found were created by those administrating the server
That's the ideal version of Linux anyway, but it's not taking into account exploits and security holes in software and what not, that makes it perfectly possible to write viruses for Linux. Anybody with a thorough understanding of the *nix architecture could probably write a virus that did some damage to a Linux system, if he/she wanted to. The reason they don't want to, is because nobody much uses Linux. I'm pretty sure though, that if everybody who used Windows changed to Linux tomorrow, we'd also see thousands of viruses and malware getting into our systems in no time. Granted, the coders would have a harder time at it, but I doubt that would stop them.

antisocialist
January 16th, 2008, 06:46 PM
That's the ideal version of Linux anyway, but it's not taking into account exploits and security holes in software and what not, that makes it perfectly possible to write viruses for Linux. we'd also see thousands of viruses and malware getting into our systems in no time. Granted, the coders would have a harder time at it, but I doubt that would stop them.

i would list some of those common exploits but i dont want the wrong people to see the list......

anyway, i was just wondering if you have ever seen a source code or tried programming and understood any of it... programming isnt easy, and writing a virus that can do any major damage to a *nix computer would take a lot of time and effort. i do not know if you know this but a lot of software has developmental stages before it actually works the way the person who wrote it intended, and depending on the size and number of people contrubutthis stage can take anywhere from a week to almost a year or sometimes even more! the fact is that no matter how many hackers start trying to hack linux, it will still take time

rune0077
January 16th, 2008, 10:17 PM
i would list some of those common exploits but i dont want the wrong people to see the list......

anyway, i was just wondering if you have ever seen a source code or tried programming and understood any of it... programming isnt easy, and writing a virus that can do any major damage to a *nix computer would take a lot of time and effort. i do not know if you know this but a lot of software has developmental stages before it actually works the way the person who wrote it intended, and depending on the size and number of people contrubutthis stage can take anywhere from a week to almost a year or sometimes even more! the fact is that no matter how many hackers start trying to hack linux, it will still take time

I agree completely with this. I didn't say it would be easy (certainly harder than Windows), just that it's doable. Let's not forget that back in the 1980's - early 1990's, no one wanted to hack Windows computers - the elite hackers where after Unix systems, and they still did manage to get in. Robert Morrison wrote a worm that pretty much disabled 80% of what was then the Internet, and his software only targeted Unix-systems. Mitnick sized control of a smal global network of University-mainframes just by uploading code into a single Unix-computer. Granted, these guys where good and doesn't compare to your average script-kiddie/malware-coder, but rule number one in the digital world: as soon as somebody makes a new security feature, somebody else breaks it (and that somebody else will more likely than not be a 15-years old wiz-kid doing it from his parents basement).

And even if it would be very hard to write code that could spread through your entire system, it would be a lot easier to write stupid code that crashed your computer, logged you out or kept your CPU busy (hell, even Windows viruses has been reported to do that last one to Linux systems when you run them in wine).

antisocialist
January 16th, 2008, 10:40 PM
you didnt say it would be easy, you said it would be done in no time, that is not true

rune0077
January 17th, 2008, 12:41 AM
you didnt say it would be easy, you said it would be done in no time, that is not true

Well, second to no time, then. Really, how many security updates does Ubuntu get on a more or less weekly basis? I'm not counting them, but I get some just about every week. According to informIT:


Red Hat releases as many as five security bulletins a day

(that's from http://www.informit.com/guides/content.aspx?g=security&seqNum=16&rl=1 - there are several other Linux weaknesses discussed there).

Point being, if Linux was so secure, then why all the security-fixes?

antisocialist
January 17th, 2008, 02:17 AM
Well, second to no time, then. Really, how many security updates does Ubuntu get on a more or less weekly basis? I'm not counting them, but I get some just about every week. According to informIT:



(that's from http://www.informit.com/guides/content.aspx?g=security&seqNum=16&rl=1 - there are several other Linux weaknesses discussed there).

Point being, if Linux was so secure, then why all the security-fixes?

why improve something that works?

security updates are just that, UPDATES, your computer will work just fine without them, but its better to have them because it makes things even better

popch
January 17th, 2008, 09:14 AM
Point being, if Linux was so secure, then why all the security-fixes?

Linux is not 'secure' per se. Linux is 'secure in comparison with' (Windows, namely).

Security problems are usually classified into

denial of service (can't use computer or program)
breach of confidentiality
loss of data or of data integrityAs you can clearly see, they are not restricted to problems related to people with black hats.

The conclusion is that practically every software change which is not an enhancement (in terms of functionality or - possibly - performance) can be qualified as 'security update'.

Since practically every software has errors (even the most modest 'Hello World' programs), there is ample reason for frequent 'security' updates.