i wrote an article concerning the differences between linux andwindows

I would just like to inform everybody of an article that i wrote
detailing the differences of linux and windows, this article may help
those that are thinking of making the switch. It may give you the
knowledge necessary to make an informed decision
<a href="http://www.alinuxworld.com/Linux_Overview_1.html">click this
link</a>

alinuxworld <gebhardtmatt@gmail.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> I would just like to inform everybody of an article that i wrote
> detailing the differences of linux and windows, this article may help
> those that are thinking of making the switch. It may give you the
> knowledge necessary to make an informed decision
> <a href="http://www.alinuxworld.com/Linux_Overview_1.html">click this
> link</a>[/color]

Unfortunately you

a) posted html
b) used google groups
c) posted from a mac

This guarantees almost no one will see your post.

Hadron wrote:
[color=blue]
> alinuxworld <gebhardtmatt@gmail.com> writes:
>[color=green]
>> I would just like to inform everybody of an article that i wrote
>> detailing the differences of linux and windows, this article may help
>> those that are thinking of making the switch. It may give you the
>> knowledge necessary to make an informed decision
>> <a href="http://www.alinuxworld.com/Linux_Overview_1.html">click this
>> link</a>[/color]
>
> Unfortunately you
>
> a) posted html[/color]

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Do you *ever* get something right, "kernel hacker" Hadron Quark?
[color=blue]
> b) used google groups[/color]

Bad enough, but still...
[color=blue]
> c) posted from a mac[/color]

As long as he does not start OxRetard idiocy or Snot dishonesty, I don't
care
[color=blue]
> This guarantees almost no one will see your post.[/color]

His article contained some factual errors, but still was quite OK
--
You're not my type. For that matter, you're not even my species

"DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> alinuxworld wrote:[color=green]
>> I would just like to inform everybody of an article that i wrote
>> detailing the differences of linux and windows, this article may help
>> those that are thinking of making the switch. It may give you the
>> knowledge necessary to make an informed decision
>> <a href="http://www.alinuxworld.com/Linux_Overview_1.html">click this
>> link</a>[/color]
>
> Sorry to say: I won't read your site because your presentation is horrible.
> Endless paragraphs with no section labels?
>
> But let me guess: it's a hate-MS\Windows rant?
>[/color]

With pay by click Mac adverts.

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:56:02 +0100, Hadron wrote:
[color=blue]
> "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> writes:
>[color=green]
>> alinuxworld wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> I would just like to inform everybody of an article that i wrote
>>> detailing the differences of linux and windows, this article may help
>>> those that are thinking of making the switch. It may give you the
>>> knowledge necessary to make an informed decision
>>> <a href="http://www.alinuxworld.com/Linux_Overview_1.html">click this
>>> link</a>[/color]
>>
>> Sorry to say: I won't read your site because your presentation is horrible.
>> Endless paragraphs with no section labels?
>>
>> But let me guess: it's a hate-MS\Windows rant?
>>[/color]
>
> With pay by click Mac adverts.[/color]

One of Schestowitz's protégés?

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
[url]http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/[/url]

alinuxworld wrote:[color=blue]
> I would just like to inform everybody of an article that i wrote
> detailing the differences of linux and windows, this article may help
> those that are thinking of making the switch. It may give you the
> knowledge necessary to make an informed decision
> <a href="http://www.alinuxworld.com/Linux_Overview_1.html">click this
> link</a>[/color]

Sorry to say: I won't read your site because your presentation is horrible.
Endless paragraphs with no section labels?

But let me guess: it's a hate-MS\Windows rant?

alinuxworld wrote:
[color=blue]
> I would just like to inform everybody of an article that i wrote
> detailing the differences of linux and windows[/color]

It's full of errors:


"Linus Torvalds first made Linux as a variant of the Unix operating system"

It's conceptually derived from /Minix/, not Unix.


"Over the years Linux has gone from a simple text based clone of Unix"

Minix, not Unix. And /all/ Unices are console-based, unless one adds an
X server. X11R5 was released on August 29, 1991 - a few weeks after
Linux, and the twm window manager has been available for Unices since
X11R4. Barring the first few months of it's existence (nearly two
decades ago) GNU/Linux has /always/ had X and window managers.


"Unix code has also been gradually written out of Linux over the years"

There has never /been/ any Unix code in Linux. Indeed, such false claims
have been the subject of court cases involving SCO and others over the
years. There has never been any evidence presented to justify those claims.


"there is no one version of Linux; instead there are many different
versions or distributions of Linux"

You jump from referring to Linux as a kernel, to referring to it as a
user environment (i.e. distribution). Please clarify that you mean
"GNU/Linux distribution". Yes, there have /also/ been many different
iterations of the Linux kernel.


"Gentoo, and Slackware, which due to the lack of a complete graphical
environment..."

This is blatantly false.

Gentoo and Slackware can and do utilise exactly the same graphical
environments as any other GNU/Linux distribution.


"Distributions that lack a graphical environment"

There is no such thing. Any GNU/Linux distribution may utilise any
graphical environment, provided the hardware supports it.


"Ubuntu, or Linspire make Linux far easier to use, by offering
full-featured graphical environments"

This is utter nonsense. Ubuntu and Linspire come with exactly the same
window system and window managers as any other GNU/Linux distribution.
I really don't know where you drawing these strange conclusions from.
What "full-features" are you referring to?


"Although most Linux distributions offer a graphical environment, to
simplify the user experience, they all also offer a way for more
technically inclined users to directly communicate with the Kernel via a
shell or command line."

"Communicate with the Kernel"???

A terminal interface is just a shell for the user to launch programs.
Communicating directly with the /kernel/ has nothing to do with it.


"For example if Microsoft Windows is not working right, then you should
be able to call Microsoft and make use of their TECH support to fix the
issue"

You fail to elaborate that user support for Windows is extremely limited
in its scope, and that problems with buggy software cannot be resolved
with a simple phone call. Typically the only issues that /can/ be
resolved with Windows paid support, is configuration errors, and
invariably the only recommendations made by Windows tech. support
personnel is to either reboot; reinstall the OS; or apply a service pack
or hotfix that you've already applied without success.

IOW Microsoft has a far less direct interaction with its users than
Linux vendors do. E.g. users submitting Bugzilla reports, or even
contributing patches, is not something you will see any time soon for
Windows.


"If you have a problem with Ubuntu Linux you cannot call Ubuntu and
expect any help"

Wrong:

[url]http://www.ubuntu.com/support/paid[/url]


"for the most part if you use Linux you are on your own"

As a previous Windows user and Microsoft customer, I can tell you that
you are much more "on your own" using /Windows/. A community of
proprietary software users represents the most ineffective form of peer
support, and Microsoft so-called professional support is next to useless.

"to make things easier on yourself you will need to only install
applications that are native to your distribution and graphical environment"

Rubbish.

One does not need to run the KDE desktop in order to run KDE
applications, nor the Gnome desktop to run Gnome applications. One only
needs the necessary support libraries. With the package management that
is prevalent in nearly all GNU/Linux distributions, the user does not
even need to think in terms of which application requires which DE. One
simply installs that application, and all the necessary deps are pulled
in automatically.


"however for Windows you will need to pay for the majority of applications"

This is a misnomer.

The mindset of typical Windows users, combined with their general
ignorance of anything outside the mainstream, means that most of them
will undoubtedly choose proprietary software over Free Software. But the
fact remains that the very thing that makes Free Software /Free/, means
that it should (and often can) be built to run on other platforms such
as Windows. The fact that many Windows users may be ignorant of the
existence of such software, does not mean it doesn't exist.

An ever-increasing number of Windows users choose to run Firefox instead
of IE (for example), due to IE's gross insecurity and lack of standards
compliance. However it's unlikely that many of those same users are even
aware that Firefox is Free Software; have ever even /heard/ of the GPL
or the FSF; or can even begin to understand the principles of freedom in
relation to software. Most of them probably think it's just /freeware/,
which is not the same as Free Software.


"Also with Windows you can rest assured that your hardware will most
likely be supported by the operating software"

Again, this is blatantly wrong.

Linux probably has support for more hardware than any single version of
Windows, and Vista in particular is very poorly supported by drivers.
Indeed, the problem is so severe that it even prompted a recent class
action suit against Microsoft, which has lead to the exposure of damning
evidence showing top Microsoft staff complaining (in internal Emails)
about Vista's chronic lack of hardware support.

Even XP lacks support for hardware, both old and new. Try installing
XP on an Intel ICHx RAID controller some time. I have half a dozen
devices here that will never work properly, if at all, with XP - or
likely any future version of Windows. Those same devices work perfectly
well with Linux.


"It is much easier to find the software that you are looking for with
Windows"

Given Windows utter lack of any package management, I'd say that is
completely wrong. There is indeed a vast amount of software for Windows,
the majority of which overlaps. Once you whittle down the choices to
actual /genres/, rather than brand names and versions of the same
software with varying degrees of license limitations, what you are left
with is more or less the same number of applications across most platforms.

Again, I refer you to the aforementioned archetypal Windows mindset,
that thrives on buzzwords, and clings to very limited concepts of what
constitutes "acceptable" software. Many Windows users will buy (or more
likely /steal/) software simply because it has a particular logo or
brand name, rather than because it is what they actually need, whilst
ignoring perfectly legal Free Software options, for no other reason than
the fact that they don't recognise the "brand". Such people have become
accustomed to being brainwashed by marketing indoctrination for so long,
that when they're finally presented with choices that are /not/ heavily
marketed, they assume the "product" must be unworthy. There is also this
ridiculous stigma of "expensive = good, cheap (or free) = bad", which is
patently /not/ the case with Free Software, since the reason it is free
is merely a side-effect of the fact that it is /Free/. The /point/ is
freedom ... not cost. Typical Windows users completely fail to grasp
that point, thanks to years of brainwashing by Intellectual Monopolists
like Microsoft.

Given a choice between hunting the Web for drivers and software, or
simply typing "yum install foo" (or with the GUI), which would you
rather do? Now, months or even years later, after you have accumulated
possibly thousands of applications from disparate vendors ... update all
of those applications to the latest versions. The Linux method would be
"yum update". That's it. Period.

Now do that on Windows.

Finding and maintaining the "software you need" on Windows is an utter
nightmare compared to Linux.


"Software that is made to install on one version probably will require
some configuration in order to install on another version. An example
would be if you were trying to install software that was made for the
KDE graphical environment, on the GNOME GUI"

Once again, this is utter nonsense.

In addition to the blatantly false assertions you've made about Gnome
and KDE, the "configuration" that you talk about is the job of the
package maintainer ... /not/ the user. If a software project has a
package in your distribution's repository, then all you need do is
install it with yum or apt. It's that simple.

If a project is /not/ represented in the repo, then that may be for a
number of reasons, including the possibility that it is too new, too
unstable, not popular enough for anyone to have bothered, or has license
restrictions that make it undesirable to do so. This is not something
that typically concerns Linux noobs, since such packages are typically
not popular enough for those noobs to have even heard of them. More
advanced Linux users will probably just build such packages from source
(if there is any interest in doing so), and having done so, they will
invariably share those builds with others (including the aforementioned
noobs). IOW this is a non-issue, in the vast majority of cases.


"A disadvantage of Linux is when it comes to using hardware devices such
as Printers, Scanners, or Digital camera’s. Where as the driver software
for these devices will often be easily available for Windows, with Linux
you are for the most part left on your own to find drivers for these
devices."

This may be true of XP, but it certainly isn't true of Vista, as
discussed above. Also remember that XP has its own unique problems with
USB devices such as those "Printers, Scanners, or Digital camera’s".
XP's USB stack is a joke, often resulting in "unrecognised devices" or
devices that are continuously re-enumerated as "new hardware" each time
they're connected. It's not unusual for the XP printer control panel to
have dozens of entries for (what is essentially) the same device,
denoted as "Printer #1, Printer #2, Printer #3 ... Printer #<n>",
because XP's PnP is a poster child for incompetent design.


"The only way the user can damage the whole computer would be if he or
she logged in as root user by providing the root user name and password
to the terminal before running the virus."

Even this is no longer true, thanks to SELinux, which limits the scope
of access any given task has using Mandatory Access Controls, such that
even /root/ may be unable to cause damage to the system, depending on
the implemented SELinux policy.


"The fact that Linux is more secure is the tipping point, that tilts the
scales in the favor of Linux."

I'd argue that its /Freedom/ is more significant than its technical
capabilities, regardless of whether or not most of the people using that
software are even aware of such Freedom. It is the Freedom of Linux that
enables users to utilise that software, without restriction, in any way
/they/ want, rather than be dictated to by governments and corporations
that only have their own selfish interests at heart.


The premise and intent of your article is commendable, but it is simply
far too inaccurate to be considered seriously, and indeed might
conceivably even cause the uninitiated to grossly misperceive the nature
of Linux and GNU.


Please do more research before you publish such articles, and preferably
communicate with those currently responsible for maintaining Free
Software and the GPL, as I think you'll find their insight invaluable.

--
K.
[url]http://slated.org[/url]

..----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
| ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. [url]http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8[/url]
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
15:59:54 up 86 days, 13:35, 4 users, load average: 0.18, 0.18, 0.11

Moshe is flatfish (aka: Gary Stewart)

[url]http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/01/moshe-goldfarb-troll.html[/url]
[url]http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/01/flatfish-troll.html[/url]