The Ultimate Linux vs. Windows Competition

Status
Not open for further replies.
ScYcS said:
I said it in the past and i will say it again:

The biggest strength of Linux is choice! The biggest weakness of Linux is choice!

Distros using different package management systems, different desktops and different repositories as well as different GUIs are what makes Linux great because of the choices you have. It also makes it almost inaccessible for someone looking to switch OSs easily.
Click to expand...

You make a valid point. reading it, I can't help but think about Apple and OSX. OSX is based on BSD, but technically you could install pretty much anything Linux has on it. In the end, the main difference between OSX and Linux is really simply that Apple doesn't really push the availability of opensource software as a selling point, so it's user base contently carries on with the software that Apple sells and provides.

In those regards, Linux proponents might take a cue from Apple when helping out new users, by remembering to keep their advice as centered in the gui tools that a particular distro comes with. For example, if I were to give advice to someone about installing software under Ubuntu, my first thoughts should be to tell them how to use Synaptic Package Manager, not telling them them about apt-get, dpkg, alien, compiling, and/or other stuff, regardless of my preference towards any of them. If they want to configure something, I need to try to advise them on the gui tools available before I ever attempt to describe editing configuration files. I don't really need to volunteer the other information at that time, unless they ask for it, despite my urges to "geek out" and ramble about other options.

I suppose those are just obvious thoughts that most people have contemplated on their own, but it seems relevant.
 
duby229 said:
I can understand your point of view, however it does nothing more the reinforce this behavior, and doesnt solve the problem. People need to change there ideas, and by telling people that they are doing it right, when in fact they are not....

Well I'll just stop while I'm ahead.
Click to expand...

So then both sides need to give in and adjust

The elitest side needs to get their heads out of their asses an learn to help those who are WILLING to go to linux and get them over and adjusted instead of thinking they are some 1337 gawds because they use *nix who probably used Windows long before they ever heard of *nix and were in the same spot at one time.


And the people who have used Windows all their life, need to be more open to change and accept that Windows didnt always do things the best and that with the internet they need to do some research to at least try to learn things before expecting everyone to hold thir hand and show them everything.


The 2nd one is harder to change then the first, people dont like change, and when they do , they just want some help and clear understanding and explination as to why this other method is better, instead of some pumped up ego saying "It is better, cause is linux and i said so, so lets stop while i am ahead" type attitude.;) ;)
 
heatlesssun said:
Okay Linux guru's, someone hear mentioned using the emerge command to install. I'm running Ubuntu 7.04 and from a shell running emerge gives me command not found.

Is there something I need to install? Thanks!
Click to expand...


plx do not take this the wrong way but wow....I am glad you are trying out linux but every one was a noob ok.

So I also use ubuntu also lemmie give you the low down on how to install apps. emerge first off is a gentoo thing, thats how gentoo installs its apps. Actually any distribution like sabayon, that is gentoo based you can use emerge.

Now Ubuntu and family is Debian based which means we use apt-get, aptitude and if you want a gui synaptic. Lets Continue..... now apt-get and aptitude are command line based, really its up to you which you like to use, I myself use apt-get because aptitude gets a little too smart and trys to remove packages sometimes it should not. Though since edgy, so edgy and feisty aptitude is kinda irrelevant now...

ok so how do we use apt-get.... well first open up the terminal and remember you need to be root to do this (remember installing apps, and touching files outside of home need root access....sorry but a lot of new people forget this and wonder why they cant save their updated source.list) so;
Code: 
 sudo apt-get install <package_name>
would be needed to install, to update your list with the repositories like gentoos emerge --sync its,
Code: 
sudo apt-get update
to upgrade you can use upgrade but dist-upgrade will also remove packages if they are no long a dependency.
Code: 
sudo apt-get upgrade
or
Code: 
sudo apt-get dist-upgrade

now if you want a gui then there is synaptic which you can find from the menu via
System>Adminstration>Synaptic
from there you can search and install, update and upgrade as you see fit.

Ok now to add repositories, now you can do this via command line or via synaptic, just find the repository apt link so for example the edgy avant-window-navigator apt link is; 'deb http://download.tuxfamily.org/syzygy42 edgy' and the source link is
'deb-src http://download.tuxfamily.org/syzygy42 edgy'

ok so in synaptic you can just go settings>repositories and then in the third party software tab click add and paste the apt links. ok, save refresh and the links are there, if you wanna do it command line which I myself prefer, you would kinda do the same but;

Code: 
gksudo <text_editor> /etc/apt/sources.list
ex
Code: 
gksudo gedit /etc/apt/sources.list

and the apt links at the bottom of the file, save and exit, and then just sudo apt-get update and it will receive the information from the repo, and then you can search or install via command line.
ok also its better practice to use gksudo instead of sudo when using a graphical application, while say using with gedit there is not negative repercussions some apps can cause havoc like not letting you login because you .ICEauthority 's permissions has changed. So yeah remember if tis command line use sudo if you are gonna use a graphical application then use gksudo.
 
general said:
Yes, and when the people who make the distros pull their heads out of their backsides and do things like Mac and Windows in this regard people will start using linux. Synaptic shows you a ton of packages, you don't need many of them and you also have to mess around with making sure that your package manager is pointing in the right place. There's no reason why you should need something like Synaptic for this.

You should be able to go to the web, find a program you like, download and install it. I shouldn't have to leave my browser for this. To say that I have to research it, leave my browser, start a package manager, find the package (if I'm lucky) and then install it is just backwards.
Click to expand...

You can do this with most .rpm or .deb package based distros.

For instance, with Ubuntu 7.04, go to http://packages.ubuntu.com/feisty/

Could it be better? Sure. Personally I'd like to see some screenshots, better descriptions, and an ability to sort by popularity and/or search for the most relevant results. But then again, the Add/Remove Programs option in the main menu presents all the most popular ones, and if you want better descriptions and searching for relevance, Synaptic handles that quite well.
 
MrGuvernment said:
So then both sides need to give in and adjust

The elitest side needs to get their heads out of their asses an learn to help those who are WILLING to go to linux and get them over and adjusted instead of thinking they are some 1337 gawds because they use *nix who probably used Windows long before they ever heard of *nix and were in the same spot at one time.


And the people who have used Windows all their life, need to be more open to change and accept that Windows didnt always do things the best and that with the internet they need to do some research to at least try to learn things before expecting everyone to hold thir hand and show them everything.


The 2nd one is harder to change then the first, people dont like change, and when they do , they just want some help and clear understanding and explination as to why this other method is better, instead of some pumped up ego saying "It is better, cause is linux and i said so, so lets stop while i am ahead" type attitude.;) ;)
Click to expand...

Except that your forcing a stereotype on me that I dont conform too. I think it is ignorant, and stubborn... Who needs to pull there head out of there ass? Not me. I already know how things are done, and expect things to work different in different environments....

Somebody asks for help, and I provide it as best I can. Somebody bitches that it doesnt work like Windows, and I tell them it isnt going to happen.... Ever..... Period.... Get used to it.... Sombody gives his opinion on something, and I'll give a counter opinion. Nothing wrong with any of it on either side.

You in here attcking me doesnt help solve the ops problems either. I offered advice, he asked me to elaberate, and I did. He gave an opinion, and I gave a counter opinion. Then you call me an elitist... Get over yourself. You aint no better then me so get used to it.
 
as a long time windows users and a linux convert, the repository method of install is about 1000000000000x better then windows and mac osx, in fact there is an apt port to osx called fink if I am not mistaken, err well fink uses apt to install other unix software on osx.


if there is an apt-get port to windows I would use it forever
 
OYFGZ!!!!!! THERE IS WIN-GET W00T!!, Gonna try it out....ok tried it out on a recently fresh windows mce install and so far so good, but it seems like the links break easily and quickly
 
"And the people who have used Windows all their life, need to be more open to change and accept that Windows didnt always do things the best and that with the internet they need to do some research to at least try to learn things before expecting everyone to hold thir hand and show them everything."

The difference is that even in Windows 95, I don't recall ever having to go to the command line except for ipconfig. That was quickly put into the GUI. Do people have to go and research how to use OSX when they switch? I certainly didn't and know plenty of non-technical people who switched and didn't do any research. When the linux development community starts benchmarking itself by OSX and Microsoft and actually gets organized as a community, then they may have a chance to compete with them. That, sadly, will not ever happen. Linux is free and it still loses.

"as a long time windows users and a linux convert, the repository method of install is about 1000000000000x better then windows and mac osx, in fact there is an apt port to osx called fink if I am not mistaken, err well fink uses apt to install other unix software on osx."

Seeing something on a web page you want and then launching another application where you would then search for something that 'might' be there (and then if not finding a repository for it, adding it and then repeating) is NOT better than just downloading something and installing it. There is a REASON why MS and Apple don't have this in their OS's. It's not as good. It may make life easier in a linux based OS, but please don't confuse it with the commercial offerings. MS/Apple are perfectly happy to steal ideas like this when it fits them. It just doesn't in this case.
 
Aside from Ubuntu, I don't know any distros which are attempting to compete in the same market as Windows and OSX. Linux may be more difficult to learn, but that's of little concern for those who are actually using it.

As someone who is reasonably adept at using a computer, I'm actually quite glad that Linux isn't built for the same market as Windows; I would lose a great deal of the features that are currently an asset to me (ie/ CLI programs).
 
jimmyb said:
Aside from Ubuntu, I don't know any distros which are attempting to compete in the same market as Windows and OSX. Linux may be more difficult to learn, but that's of little concern for those who are actually using it.

As someone who is reasonably adept at using a computer, I'm actually quite glad that Linux isn't built for the same market as Windows; I would lose a great deal of the features that are currently an asset to me (ie/ CLI programs).
Click to expand...

Thank you.... That is more or less what I was trying to say.
 
Thread Killer

Drum Roll Please.

Linux:
- Desktop Environment
+ Free Operating System
+ Free, powerful open source software.
+ Very wide range of customability.
+ Excellent community
+ Basically best solution for using your machine for anything other than video gaming, period.

Windows:
- Gaming Environment
+ Hardware specifically tailored for gaming
+ Most commonly accepted 3D Game development platform by developers
+ Most developed driver database/API
+ Basically best solution for gaming that is available at the moment.

Simplified:
Linux - Overall functionality.
Windows - Gaming.
Macintosh - Design.
Console - Gaming-ONLY.
 
Dark_Legacy said:
Thread Killer

Drum Roll Please.

Linux:
- Desktop Environment
+ Free Operating System
+ Free, powerful open source software.
+ Very wide range of customability.
+ Excellent community
+ Basically best solution for using your machine for anything other than video gaming, period.

Windows:
- Gaming Environment
+ Hardware specifically tailored for gaming
+ Most commonly accepted 3D Game development platform by developers
+ Most developed driver database/API
+ Basically best solution for gaming that is available at the moment.

Simplified:
Linux - Overall functionality.
Windows - Gaming.
Macintosh - Design.
Console - Gaming-ONLY.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you are trying to say, bar two specifics

1) Most commonly accepted 3D Game development platform by developers
if by that you mean DirectX... then afraid that is wrong, OpenGL is (due to all the playstation varients, all the nintendo varients, all the operating system and even the Xbox).

2) Most developed driver database/API
what do you mean by that? the fact that the kernel is open means that makers can make their drivers (if htey want) really easily
 
jimmyb said:
Aside from Ubuntu, I don't know any distros which are attempting to compete in the same market as Windows and OSX. Linux may be more difficult to learn, but that's of little concern for those who are actually using it.

As someone who is reasonably adept at using a computer, I'm actually quite glad that Linux isn't built for the same market as Windows; I would lose a great deal of the features that are currently an asset to me (ie/ CLI programs).
Click to expand...

I think the problem with trying to compete in the mainstream market is on a long enough timeline... all operating systems are going to end up very similar and with very similar issues to Microsoft Windows.

Maybe for Linux to retain its redeeming qualities, it needs to stay in the niche market. I believe Steve Jobs and Apple have a similar attitude toward OS X.
 
Dark_Legacy said:
Thread Killer

Drum Roll Please.

Linux:
- Desktop Environment
+ Free Operating System
+ Free, powerful open source software.
+ Very wide range of customability.
+ Excellent community
+ Basically best solution for using your machine for anything other than video gaming, period.

Windows:
- Gaming Environment
+ Hardware specifically tailored for gaming
+ Most commonly accepted 3D Game development platform by developers
+ Most developed driver database/API
+ Basically best solution for gaming that is available at the moment.

Simplified:
Linux - Overall functionality.
Windows - Gaming.
Macintosh - Design.
Console - Gaming-ONLY.
Click to expand...

I hope this post was directed at only the desktop market... because the corporate/enterprise domain is an entirely different monster, and it represents the majority.
 
Windows just super easy for everyone becuase it's been the same OS for the last 12 years, yes I do know there have been changes but alot of the same underpinning with different bells and whistles. I know for many people like me on PC's Linux is just different and there is a learning curve. Thankful for forums like this that can direct and point me. Also thankful for OSX because that's a great learning tool for the different software. Now if I can just get Linux to install I'll be very happy.
 
Being as how it was such a wide blanket statement.. I thought it was a joke... But just in case I pointed you to one of the many server markets where that blanket statement doesnt hold true.....

Just thought I'd prevent some misinformation from spreading is all.
 
general said:
"And the people who have used Windows all their life, need to be more open to change and accept that Windows didnt always do things the best and that with the internet they need to do some research to at least try to learn things before expecting everyone to hold thir hand and show them everything."

The difference is that even in Windows 95, I don't recall ever having to go to the command line except for ipconfig. That was quickly put into the GUI. Do people have to go and research how to use OSX when they switch? I certainly didn't and know plenty of non-technical people who switched and didn't do any research. When the linux development community starts benchmarking itself by OSX and Microsoft and actually gets organized as a community, then they may have a chance to compete with them. That, sadly, will not ever happen. Linux is free and it still loses.
Click to expand...

I think this is up to the distributions, not necessarily the Linux community in general. One of the reasons I prefer Linux is because of the command line, because of the config files, and because I can get things done faster with them. It certainly didn't happen over night, but now I prefer it.

I think what Linux needs more than anything are more killer apps that are exclusive. Things that make Windows and Mac users (well probably not so much Mac, with their BSD underpinnings and all) say "wow, I wish I could do that". Free alternatives to things like Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, Garageband, Cubase, Illustrator, etc. that aren't just on par but bring their own benefits to the table, with all the polish of their commercial counterparts. Things that would make any rational person add up the numbers and realize it's worth making the switch.
 
I'll make it short and sweet.

What linux needs is to be as easy as Windows, and yet be able to be as configurable as it currently is.

Only then will all the noobs come over.

The linux addicts can keep thumbing their noses at everyone all they want, but until this happens, linux will never be popular.
 
Godofdestrcution said:
I'll make it short and sweet.

What linux needs is to be as easy as Windows, and yet be able to be as configurable as it currently is.

Only then will all the noobs come over.

The linux addicts can keep thumbing their noses at everyone all they want, but until this happens, linux will never be popular.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%, But I just dont think it is possible to maintain functionality in a user friendly way. In that sense I believe Linux is better off in the position it is in now. MS has its role to fill, which they are filling. Linux has its role to fill, which it is filling.

That is all.
 
Godofdestrcution said:
I'll make it short and sweet.

What linux needs is to be as easy as Windows, and yet be able to be as configurable as it currently is.

Only then will all the noobs come over.

The linux addicts can keep thumbing their noses at everyone all they want, but until this happens, linux will never be popular.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I don't think most Linux fans give a damn either way. I don't care what you or anyone else uses. Linux doesn't need to be more Windows-like any more than I need a hole in my head. I certainly would like it if more people used it, but it's not high on my wish list as far as Linux goes. In fact, it's pretty low. I'd rather have better drivers, more polished apps, and more standards across distributions.
 
nigerian_businessman said:
To be honest, I don't think most Linux fans give a damn either way. I don't care what you or anyone else uses. Linux doesn't need to be more Windows-like any more than I need a hole in my head. I certainly would like it if more people used it, but it's not high on my wish list as far as Linux goes. In fact, it's pretty low. I'd rather have better drivers, more polished apps, and more standards across distributions.
Click to expand...

i have to disagree. you should care if more people use it. why? thats the only way you're gonna get better drivers, more polished apps and more standards. companies would take notice and start diverting more resources to polishing up their drivers and such.
 
markt435 said:
i have to disagree. you should care if more people use it. why? thats the only way you're gonna get better drivers, more polished apps and more standards. companies would take notice and start diverting more resources to polishing up their drivers and such.
Click to expand...

I do care, but not at the expense of turning Linux into Windows. If I wanted to use Windows, I'd use it and save myself a whole lot of trouble as far as gaming and audio apps go.

What Windows users want from Linux is a pipe dream, anyway. Too many people with different things they want out of it, and with differing ideas of what to put into it. Its an reality that RPM vs DEB, KDE vs Gnome, etc are here to stay. Different strokes and all that. Windows users can either adapt to it, or continue on with their overpriced underperforming clusterf*!@ of an operating system. Doesn't bother me either way.
 
Godofdestrcution said:
I'll make it short and sweet.

What linux needs is to be as easy as Windows, and yet be able to be as configurable as it currently is.

Only then will all the noobs come over.

The linux addicts can keep thumbing their noses at everyone all they want, but until this happens, linux will never be popular.
Click to expand...

The thing is... it is easy
The problem is it is different and people associate that with being hard (My Ubuntu setup I use at work I havn't gone near the command-line at all, yet for my Gentoo box at home I live there)

Yes drivers are an issue with linux and if yr hardware isn't supported out of the box then sure it might not be as straight forward, but neither is windows to install. The thing is most people don't install windows from scratch, it comes pre-installed and has a ghost disk thus hiding part of windows
 
Heh. I speak from experience.



After reformatting 1 pc 9 times, and this one 3, it's not easy.

It's been hell trying to get wireless to work, which I still can't. I have two ubuntu pcs hooked up to the router, and my vista pcs are in other rooms.

And my wireless is supported damnit. I can see it. I tried 3 different usb wireless cards. Nothing. I changed my router around. Nothing.
 
lets put it this way I had more trouble getting wireless to work in windows then in linux
The fact that it has been reconised is a very good start

Let me guess... you have a ralink card and when trying to use the networkmanager you couldn't use it?

Assuming that is the case:
NetworkManager is a fantastic network... manager it however it is effectivly a wrapper around core Linux command

RaLink drivers do not adhere to the iw* and wpa_supplicant standard.
Its bad because you can't use network manager.
However ralink did GPL their drivers and the rt2x00 are making great improvements

as a stop-gap until the rt2x00 is stabler and more predictable there is a raconfig* application which works very well

what is your wireless chipset?
 
sudo lspci | grep 802

should do it (nice and quick command-line hack) but both KDE and GNOME have a hardware device browser that you can use todo the same thing
 
duby229 said:
Just thought I'd prevent some misinformation from spreading is all.
Click to expand...

it is not misinformation that the mass majority of corporate workstations are running Windows

for posterity i'll use myself as a quick example.. i work in net ops for the world's largest independant credit card issuer (MBNA). enterprise wide we have roughly 40,000 workstations running Windows XP and in my particular department, 150 servers running W2K3EE.

the _only_ boxes we have running a non-Windows OS are AIX RS6000's that we co-lo for the US Federal Reserve

it is also of note that my department maintains a "5 9s" SLA... or less than 6 minutes of total system downtime per year.
 
Godofdestrcution said:
I'll make it short and sweet.

What linux needs is to be as easy as Windows, and yet be able to be as configurable as it currently is.

Only then will all the noobs come over.

The linux addicts can keep thumbing their noses at everyone all they want, but until this happens, linux will never be popular.
Click to expand...

I don't want Linux to be any more like Windows. I don't like what Microsoft has been doing with the latest versions of Windows.
 
Stellar said:
it is not misinformation that the mass majority of corporate workstations are running Windows

for posterity i'll use myself as a quick example.. i work in net ops for the world's largest independant credit card issuer (MBNA). enterprise wide we have roughly 40,000 workstations running Windows XP and in my particular department, 150 servers running W2K3EE.

the _only_ boxes we have running a non-Windows OS are AIX RS6000's that we co-lo for the US Federal Reserve

it is also of note that my department maintains a "5 9s" SLA... or less than 6 minutes of total system downtime per year.
Click to expand...

You didnt say anything about corporate workstations... You laid down the blanket statement of the "server market" So I showed one of the many server markets where that isnt true. Besides while that may hold true in your environment, we have exclusively Linux thin clients on our network here. Running a windows application to boot....
 
I for one do not care if linux beat windows in the market share, windows can keep the larger market share, and as more secure as *nix systems are by design, I do not want exploits and malware designed for it. I would like maybe more commercial software and manufacturer drivers.
 
nigerian_businessman said:
You're not getting it. Going into Synaptic is easier than searching for something on the web.

You go into Synaptic and search for the package you want. And by package you can think of that like a zip file or an installer. You don't even need the name of the package, just a roundabout brief description. Like for instance, when I was looking to add NTFS read/write support, but didn't know what it was called, I searched for "ntfs" and found it. Try that on Google. Anyway, you search, then you click on the package and click "install". It's very straightforward and simple. In fact, it's more straightforward and simple than searching google and jumping through download link hell to get something.

Where people get intimidated is by the fact that explaining "click here, click here, open this, click click click" takes longer and leaves more room for error than simply saying "open your terminal and type in sudo apt-get install package". This opens up the misconception that the command line is the only way to get things done, which isn't true. There are GUI apps available, not in all cases but in most. You can, if you so desire, go to a website (the Ubuntu software repository website, etc) and download the .deb installer packages and double click them to install if you're so set in your windows mentality. It will just take longer.
Click to expand...

this single post was 200% more informative than asking a question in an irc channel with several hundred linux users who ignore you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top