Okay, first, sorry for the provocative title, but I want to start a (kind of) provocative discussion...
tl;dr: What is your opinion of what each OS is uniquely suited for and what is the "urban legend/common thought" about that OS
Long version:
First, a bit about me (sorry, boring, but kind of relevant). I'm a person that is fond of the saying "put your money where your mouth is", usually the "money" being more figurative than actual money, but you get my drift. For example, I understand why some people don't like Apple (at all), but I hold no respect for the "Apple-haters" that have not even used any of their products. (How do you know you "hate" something, if you don't know scrap about it?) Same thing goes for Android/iOS/Windows Phone and all other stuff. Because of this, I've always used (and at least tried to use) multiple operating systems to various degrees. I have been in positions through my life where I have received (for free) OLD computers and I've used those with varying degrees of success. I started with CP/M, and went through DOS and Commodore's thingy to Windows and beyond.
And, because it can't be stated enough, I loved, LOVED BeOS. That 's the first time I really "fell in love" with another OS than what was my "mainstay" at that moment.
Anyway, what has always puzzled me, has been people's attitude towards some of the choices. For example the "Linux is so difficult to install" -myth. Yes, once upon a time that was true. So it was with Windows, but people don't remember it. Then it just stuck. Ubuntu was "difficult" to install back in the day. But with the "recent" (yeah, we've had graphical installs for years) installers, Linux is actually easier to install than Windows. But then people hold these ideas that some OSes are uniquely suited for something or the other. Is this true all around the world? Do you bump into this line of thinking day in day out?
Of course, there is some truth to all of this. Windows is (currently) uniquely suited for gaming - but for the simple reason that games are available to it, exclusively. NOT because Windows, in itself is more capable gaming platform than, say, Linux Mint. (It *MIGHT* be, I have no idea of the underlying frameworks that make out the systems, but I would think that that's not the case.) Same with Apple, more or less. Mac is thought to be more suited for creative folk, simply because more of that kind of software is marketed out loud for that platform.
So, the start of the discussion is: Are individual operating systems uniquely suited for some form of computing, or are they really practically the same, just the choices of applications framing the use? Are there really deeply-set "opinions" about each OS so people choose them not by what the system can do, but what is marketed for it?
(Again, this is true to a point, you can't really use a Linux-based OS for serious/professional graphical work, because you don't have access to Adobe's library. You COULD make all of that with GIMP % Co, but good luck finding a company willing to do that.)
Also, you can think of this from another point. Say your friend/acquaintance asks you the question "So, I installed Linux on my computer... what now?"
In *MY* mind, Windows is for gaming (because I have most of my games on that platform), Mac is for graphical work (my tablet works on Mac, and for ME, Windows crashes entirely too much to do any serious business with. Also I like the aesthetics.) And Linux is for "serious" work and doing stuff where I don't want the OS to interfere with what I'm doing. (YES, I want to partition that 8Gb disk as 4Gb. No I don't care that I lose half of it, I NEED it in FAT16, shut the EFF up!.) And cases where the computer is not up to standards (Linux is way, WAY lighter than Windows), and for servers. I will never, ever, EVER again want to install and configure a Windows Server if I can help it, but I can have a barebones Debian server up and running in 20mins if you need, thanks
So, what do You think? Any opinions?
Bookmarks