People who can't see any benefit of

[Josh_B]

This thread is in response to the locked thread from earlier:

First of all, I apologize for perhaps coming across a bit harsh. Surely, if we are to have a true debate, we have to respect each other. My apologies.

Right - so in any case, I figured that I would post my reasons for using Linux and other alternative OS' over Windows. This is not to say I don't use Windows at all - in fact I still believe it is better for certain tasks. (Read - gaming, some multimedia.)

1) I dislike the fact that the registry server is even installed at all, nevermind running by default in Windows 2000. Even after 4 service packs, this service is STILL enabled by default. Allowing people from the internet to view your PC's most sensitive settings is akin to sharing your entire /etc folder in the Unix world. I don't know any Unix users who would do this....

2) Speaking of the registry... why would you create additional central points of failure, by placing all of your settings into the registry. Say for example, that your registry is corrupt. You aren't able to startup your PC at all, in most cases, which doesn't help you troubleshoot, or even recover your data without using additional tools.

3) NTFS is certainly a huge improvement over FAT8/12/16/32, but nonetheless it is still prone to fragmentation. Ext2/3 and most other Unix FS' are (I'm told), much less prone to fragmentation. There is no need to defragment under Linux.

4) Sure, installing from an .exe is easy, but what about uninstalling? Even after uninstalling an application, remnants still exist, both in the registry, and in the System32 folder. Sometimes, even after you uninstall, you find entire folders still left in the Program Files directory! RPM and DEB installers have fewer problems like this. Generally speaking, when you uninstall something under Linux, it is GONE. The only thing left might be your old configuration file, saved as "/etc/sendmail.cf.rpmsave", for example. (Obviously, this is fairly easy to remove.)

I still stand by my point that Linux allows you to learn more about the inner workings of your PC. To a certain extent, you might be right that the PC is not "a way of life", but for those of us who truly are interested in OS design, Linux provides much more opportunity to examine a real, modern 32-bit OS' internals.

Moreover, I think that the ability of Linux to run on nearly any CPU architecture is quite amazing.

Myself, I do not find the documentation under Linux to be difficult to understand, and I've only got some minor programming experience under my belt. I certainly wouldn't consider myself to be an experienced Linux programmer. Besides, even when I help setup applications such as Exchange 2000/MS CRM/Win2K AD, I still find that the documentation is geared towards systems-level programmers. Many of the diagrams still depict OS concepts and use some high-level languages to describe the operation of a given system.

I would agree that Windows does have a more unified front, but then again, for those of us who don't particularly *like* this front, we can't easily change it. In Unix, you are generally not limited to what you can do. So you see, there is more than one kind of "open" about Unix-based OS'. There is the Linux-OSS type of "open", where the source is always available for inspection, and then there's the "I can customize whatever aspect of my computing experience" kind of "open".

- Best Regards

 

[stevewm]

Originally posted by Josh_B
This thread is in response to the locked thread from earlier:

First of all, I apologize for perhaps coming across a bit harsh. Surely, if we are to have a true debate, we have to respect each other. My apologies.

Right - so in any case, I figured that I would post my reasons for using Linux and other alternative OS' over Windows. This is not to say I don't use Windows at all - in fact I still believe it is better for certain tasks. (Read - gaming, some multimedia.)

1) I dislike the fact that the registry server is even installed at all, nevermind running by default in Windows 2000. Even after 4 service packs, this service is STILL enabled by default. Allowing people from the internet to view your PC's most sensitive settings is akin to sharing your entire /etc folder in the Unix world. I don't know any Unix users who would do this....

Unless the Guest account is enabled NO ONE will be able to connect to the remote registry service with MMC.

3) NTFS is certainly a huge improvement over FAT8/12/16/32, but nonetheless it is still prone to fragmentation. Ext2/3 and most other Unix FS' are (I'm told), much less prone to fragmentation. There is no need to defragment under Linux.

Unless you are using a ridiculously small cluster size like 512 bytes (which will cause fragmentation issues on ANY filesystem) NTFS is no more prone to fragmentation than any other filesystem. Fragmentation on Windows systems is most of the time caused by temp files (such as browser caches or installer temps) Clear those files and quite often your disk will become suddenly defragmented.

4) Sure, installing from an .exe is easy, but what about
uninstalling? Even after uninstalling an application, remnants still exist, both in the registry, and in the System32 folder. Sometimes, even after you uninstall, you find entire folders still left in the Program Files directory! RPM and DEB installers have fewer problems like this. Generally speaking, when you uninstall something under Linux, it is GONE. The only thing left might be your old configuration file, saved as "/etc/sendmail.cf.rpmsave", for example. (Obviously, this is fairly easy to remove.)

Not a Windows problem. Its the fault of uninstallers and the developer that makes up the script the uninstaller follows. Most uninstallers will not remove files they did not originally create. Whether or not they do is up to the developer to make this decision.

 

[[H]EMI_426]

Why did I start messing with *nix? Back in the early, early Windows 95 days I wanted a C compiler cause I was tired of QBasic. Linux had one that came with the OS and Windows didn't. The rest is history. I don't dislike Windows at all for an end-user desktop.

You deserve to be smacked for calling /etc a "folder." It's a directory, damn it!

Installing from .exe is easy...Almost easier than getting caught in RPM version hell. There's more than one way to look at it...Admins should know better and know how to handle the common cases, users shouldn't need to. However, if you're running a *nix, you better know how to administer it.

rpm --force scares the shit out of me. Round hole, look out! Here comes the square peg! It's really great when following the Red Hat-suggested upgrade path for a C library or something renders your machine unusable.

*nix (not just Linux) allows you to learn more about how your PC does things. However, most people just don't care how the PC does things and just want it to work.

In Unix, you are limited in what you want to do unless you want to write it yourself. You're limited by the flexibility of the application you're trying to alter, etc. It's just a different limit than Windows.

I'm not exactly sure what your post was supposed to be about, which probably explains the disjointed nature of my reply. I just picked things I had issue with and responded to them.

 

[AgentxofxChaos]

You pretty much have to understand that every part of an operating system is there for a reason, and serves it's own puprose. There really isn't such a thing as a "Bad" operating system, they all do what they are supposed to, as long as you can configure them to. It is pointless to argue what operating system is "the best", since it really is an invalid argument. It really boils down to what you have more knowledge in and what your preference is. I can honestly say that i have a very limited knowledge when it comes to "really" understanding the functions of operating systems, as do a majority of people. The only people who can get a real understanding of how the operating system works is those who have coded it, or have access to the source code.

A lot of experienced Linux users(I'm not one) have a pretty good understanding of the OS mainly because they can get into the low level of it, compile stuff themselves, and eally have access to the "guts" of it. The "Open Source" aspect is probably what really makes that possible. Microsoft on the other hand has done a great deal to keep the inner workings of their OSes much more hidden and inaccessible to the user. They not only do this keep their research and work safe, but to also protect the operating system from the user. They have really spent a lot of time into getting it to function the way it does and in mission critical situations (such as using it for major corporations' networks) they really don't want the user to screw things up and then place blame on them (MS). At least that is how i see it. However due to their secrecy there are a lot of people running around who don't really know how to configure the OS to get it to run smoothly, since it takes a great deal of knowledge to really understand the system, and chances are it will take a long time to really learn it.

There is a network guy (at a community college i take computer classes at) who runs the whole campus network. He runs everything on a Novell Network because he swears that Novell is X times more stable or Microsoft is X times less stable. Now in his case maybe it is, but that is because it is apparent that he has limited knowledge of Microsoft networks. He can brag that he can run a server based on Novell for so many years because it 10 times more stable than an MS system. However if you talk to the guy who specializes in MS systems, he will tell you he has done the exact same thing on an MS system on an even bigger network. What it really comes down to the users knowledge in that system and their ability to configure it properly. I also have heard stories of people (who come and go through these classes) that their company has a netowrk and their server bounces 3 or 4 times a day. They consider that acceptable because Microsoft products are "unstable" or "Don't work". So it really boils down to the user once again. I can't say that all operating systems are perfect, especially being a person of very limited knowledge, however like i stated earlier, each operating system serves its purpose. How well it serves its purpose pretty much depends on the user, and what that user is comfortable enough with to get it to fully function the way it should.

I believe with enough knowledge of the OS you can get it to do pretty much anyting you want. Everything has its limitations or "flaws" but nothing is perfect, but a flaw doesn't necessarily make a "bad" OS. I have talked to network professionals who have been in the field for 25 years who have told me that they have installed networks on several different OSes. One i know has learned somewhere around 15+ or something (ones i'm not even familiar with since he worked for Datapoint back in the 80s, did some other stuff in the 70s) and he has told me he has yet to find a "bad" one, or one that can't do what it is supposed to.

So i guess what i am trying to say in this overdone, possibly irrelevant response is that it is really user preference. One can say they like one over the other because with their knowledge in it they can use it for whatever their needs, as opposed to the other option(s) which they don't know well enough to get it to suit their needs.

I really don't know jack when it comes to really configuring Operating systems, (hence the reason i am taking classes, mainly networking etc.) but after really looking at it you can kind of tell that it is really pointless to argue what "Best" or "better" or why this or that "sucks". Heh, i'm not really sure if i made any sense and i can't really even remember what the original post was about and if i even made a valid response to it. Anyway, it is about 2:45 am and i had time to kill so i guess i just got a little carried away. So that is just the way i see things and my opinion really doesn't have to hold any relevance at all.

 

[corrosive23]

god i love the new kids. When a thread is locked you dont make a new one based on the old one.

 

[Josh_B]

Originally posted by corrosive23
god i love the new kids. When a thread is locked you dont make a new one based on the old one.

1) As I stated at the top - this thread is to discuss people's preferences, and what they like and dislike about various available OS'.

2) If you don't have anything to add to it, with all due respect, kindly move along.