[brianmil0923]

Thanks for the information btw...

OK, first off, UNIX and LINUX are NOT the same things... *NIX nothing

You're right LINUX is a subset of UNIX. Linus Torvalds was in love with UNIX and wanted to run it on his home computer. That was his reasoning behind developing LINUX in 1991.

[Advertisements]

uhh...texas. BSD and Linux were multi tasking long before windows, and are still better at it and are more efficiant with memory. check efwis previous post

[comanighttrain]

uhh...texas. BSD and Linux were multi tasking long before windows, and are still better at it and are more efficiant with memory. check efwis previous post

[Michael]

in_texas_dallas I know you love XP form talking to you in the past, but what can XP do that Linux can't?

There are a few things that make Linux a unpopular

• Lots of people find it hard to use, and also don't recognize the names of most of the program's names.
• Hardware support is not as good as it could be, particular with wireless cards
• Not many games.

But there is one great thing about Linux, and that is it dose not get infected as much because of the way is designed.

So me, I am going to wait and get neither Linux or Vesta for now, then either Vesta will not turn out as bad as some think or Linux will improve so that it runs on my hardware with out having to try to work out how to get a wireless card working.

[in_texas_dallas]

OK, let me take y'all back to the days of pre-Windows.
This is between the times of say 1980 and 1993 (approxiamtely).

You had many different computers, many different operating systems.. But, we are not going to talk about that. We are going to talk about, say ONE kind of computer, with say 5 different operating systems, or maybe 10 operating systems that were made to run on that computer.

Programs had to be developed specifically for each of those operating systems. Plus, usually the file system and oretty much everything to do with anything on that computer had to be designed on the operating system. Needless to say, there was no compatibility in termsof programs.. That means, if you had 100 programs written (hypothetically speaking) and 10 different Operating systems, that would be only 10 programs per operating system. And if you have 100 software companies with a certain amount of money and only 1000 customers to sell software to, wouldn't it cost more money for them to develop software for the same 1000 people, but for say, 10 different operating systems, and still have all the same programs available to all operating systems

Well, that is pretty much what you had.

Now, with one operating system, you don't have to worry about incompatibility. Windows fosters the kind of evnironment where all programs can be run. All software can be used. Etc Etcetc

Who cares about multitask, I built a multitasking operating system on a 1983 RS 4P, so what. What's ur point. That doesn't change the fact that Linux is an operating system with no programs to work on. The fact that it's function is performed well by Windows. The fact that it is incompatible with 99.9999999% of programs in the planet. The fact that like, 99.9999% of the people in the world don't use it..

As far as people saying it is used as internet servers and the likes, that's actually not the golden truth either.. It is, but not like peple say it is. See, UNIX is used a lot, and WIndows is used quite a bit, and LINUX is used a lot LESS than UNIX .. So, that's why I posted, I don't care about *nix phrase. Because it is misleading. IF linux and unix were the same thing, since development on LINUX has been recent and development on Unix is ancient, people would automatically goto Linux, duh.. Makes sense doesn't it??

OK!!

Nothing wrong with Linux, but it doesn't hold a candle up to Windows at ALL.. No comparison.. It's not even a fiar comparison..

[comanighttrain]

OK, let me take y'all back to the days of pre-Windows.
This is between the times of say 1980 and 1993 (approxiamtely).

You had many different computers, many different operating systems.. But, we are not going to talk about that. We are going to talk about, say ONE kind of computer, with say 5 different operating systems, or maybe 10 operating systems that were made to run on that computer.

Programs had to be developed specifically for each of those operating systems. Plus, usually the file system and oretty much everything to do with anything on that computer had to be designed on the operating system. Needless to say, there was no compatibility in termsof programs.. That means, if you had 100 programs written (hypothetically speaking) and 10 different Operating systems, that would be only 10 programs per operating system. And if you have 100 software companies with a certain amount of money and only 1000 customers to sell software to, wouldn't it cost more money for them to develop software for the same 1000 people, but for say, 10 different operating systems, and still have all the same programs available to all operating systems

Well, that is pretty much what you had.

Now, with one operating system, you don't have to worry about incompatibility. Windows fosters the kind of evnironment where all programs can be run. All software can be used. Etc Etcetc

Who cares about multitask, I built a multitasking operating system on a 1983 RS 4P, so what. What's ur point. That doesn't change the fact that Linux is an operating system with no programs to work on. The fact that it's function is performed well by Windows. The fact that it is incompatible with 99.9999999% of programs in the planet. The fact that like, 99.9999% of the people in the world don't use it..

As far as people saying it is used as internet servers and the likes, that's actually not the golden truth either.. It is, but not like peple say it is. See, UNIX is used a lot, and WIndows is used quite a bit, and LINUX is used a lot LESS than UNIX .. So, that's why I posted, I don't care about *nix phrase. Because it is misleading. IF linux and unix were the same thing, since development on LINUX has been recent and development on Unix is ancient, people would automatically goto Linux, duh.. Makes sense doesn't it??

OK!!

Nothing wrong with Linux, but it doesn't hold a candle up to Windows at ALL.. No comparison.. It's not even a fiar comparison..

99.9999999% huh?

You ever used linux? iv used both GNU/linux and winslows you will find that linux comes with many free stable working programs, by many i mean in excess of 100. Including industry standard servers (apache http, mysql database), open office and koffice and gaim. This is after install of the OS, many many more are available. So straight after install Gnu/Linux is already ahead with windows behind with mediocre IIS 5(we have already agreed windows is a bad web server), wordpad, no database system and a single protocol chat system that is outdated already (windows messenger).

Right off the bat, Gnu/linux is ready to rock with Windows saying something like "ahh well..i donno man...maybe you should BUY microsoft office and i might be some use". So you go out and buy office, while Gnu/Linux user is sitting at home working away.

As for the drivers, there are drivers for all mainstream devices now, and a lot of less common devices.

The only reason windows is ahead on drivers and maybe partially on software is because they screwed people over to get most of their ideas, you know that they didnt invent the WIMP system?

[Thebinaryman]

i am far from completely switching to linux, i run linux on an older machine, and i am "training myself" using live cds, so that if vista is a flop, which i think it will be, i will then hold on to winxp, until its is ancient, and use linux as a main operating system.

everything you "need" is most of the time included in a linux operating system. its when people try to do things that are ment to be done on windows, with linux, we run into incompatability problems. aka windows software on linux, aka windows only hardware on linux...

[EMCguy]

heres an interesting site that allows you to compare uptimes on variuos web sites

http://uptime.netcra...ay/top.avg.html

by my count, it looks like windows accounts for 8 out of the top 50.

PS you can use this site to check what servers any site is using. For what its worth, Geeekstogo is using Linux

Best regards,

EMCguy

[comanighttrain]

BSD clearly owns

[comanighttrain]

whoops...duplicate post

Edited by comanighttrain, 02 November 2005 - 07:18 AM.

[varcsscotty]

I'm a developer and I use both linux and windows. I agree that windows is more compatable for all your fun games and it's easier to use, but if you want true power over your system then install linux.
Another plus side to linux is it's price. You get way more for your money in linux then you do in any version of windows.
Anyone who says that windows is just plain better than linux doesn't know what linux can do. Do some research, get a book, learn about penguin power. then make your judgements.

[nLang]

Who cares about multitask, I built a multitasking operating system on a 1983 RS 4P, so what. What's ur point. That doesn't change the fact that Linux is an operating system with no programs to work on. The fact that it's function is performed well by Windows. The fact that it is incompatible with 99.9999999% of programs in the planet. The fact that like, 99.9999% of the people in the world don't use it..

Linux is not incompatible with 99.9999999% of programs in the planet. That's false even for an exaggeration.

Seven years ago your statement would've been true, Linux was seriously lacking end user applications back then. These days, there are quite a few quality applications for Linux. Depending on what you do with your computer, it's completely possible to use Linux exclusively.

However, I do admit Linux is still lacking some specialized end user software, so in some cases, you'll simply have to use Windows. For example, if you do some serious digital art, Gimp just isn't enough. But, considering how fast the end user applications for Linux have been evolving, I wouldn't be surprised to see Linux applications catching up and getting better than Windows applications in a few years.

Of course Windows can perform everything Linux does, and even more. So, why use Linux if you can do the same thing in Windows? First of all, the price is quite different. Second, some people actually do care for true multitasking and other things that actually make a difference performance-wise. Third, some things are made better in Linux, believe it or not. Server programs are a no-brainer, of course, but some end-user programs are done better as well. For example, the user interface is a lot more customizable than in Windows.

Edited by nLang, 02 November 2005 - 02:24 PM.

[nLang]

I think microsoft Vista is terrible, i just looked at the specs, it is well out of town, the amount of graphical memory they want is rediculous, it is a memory eating monster and the cpu it requires is aweful.

You must keep in mind Vista isn't an operatingn system of today, it's an operating system of tomorrow. If Vista officially came out right now, the specs would be ridiculous. However, when Vista will actually come out officially, the computers will be better than in these days, and the specs won't seem so ridiculous anymore.

Plus, as other people already pointed out, you can turn off some of the resource hogging features.

I still somewhat agree with you, though. Every new version of Windows seems to become a huge monster compared to the previous version. Compare it to Linux, for example - while its specs go up with new versions as well, it's nothing compared to how much Windows manages to eat memory and burn the cpu.

The new anti piracy mechanisms mean alot of monitors wont work. And its easily bypassed. I am seriously not impressed.

This is where I completely agree. Those anti piracy mechanisms are pretty much useless when it comes to real pirates. Those mechanisms won't stop anything, they'll just annoy the harmless end users.

[comanighttrain]

well, im now putting my money where my mouth is.

Ill be going through uni using slackware linux because i cant afford windows, and my friend who isnt an advanced user(studying physics) will also be using linux.

I will let you know how it goes

[hudihoo]

windows is better then linux. First off people say that they hate windows but relize this it gets better with every version. I believe that xp is the fist windows that is completely user friendly. Vista will again improve this. As for linux not getting infected has nothing to do with the way it is designed. Linux is not used by very many people so no one makes viruses for it. If linux was the most popular their would be no viruses for windows and you would like windows better. You people just can't make up your mind.

[hudihoo]

new linux don't become monsters compared to the old beacause they arn't improving as much DUH!!!