i wrote an article concerning the differences between linux andwindows - Linux

This is a discussion on i wrote an article concerning the differences between linux andwindows - Linux ; 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: i wrote an article concerning the differences between linux andwindows

  1. 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
    click this
    link


  2. Re: i wrote an article concerning the differences between linux and windows

    alinuxworld writes:

    > 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
    > click this
    > link


    Unfortunately you

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

    This guarantees almost no one will see your post.

  3. Re: i wrote an article concerning the differences between linux and windows

    Hadron wrote:

    > alinuxworld writes:
    >
    >> 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
    >> click this
    >> link

    >
    > Unfortunately you
    >
    > a) posted html


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

    Do you *ever* get something right, "kernel hacker" Hadron Quark?

    > b) used google groups


    Bad enough, but still...

    > c) posted from a mac


    As long as he does not start OxRetard idiocy or Snot dishonesty, I don't
    care

    > This guarantees almost no one will see your post.


    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


  4. Re: i wrote an article concerning the differences between linux and windows

    "DFS" writes:

    > alinuxworld wrote:
    >> 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
    >> click this
    >> link

    >
    > 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?
    >


    With pay by click Mac adverts.

  5. Re: i wrote an article concerning the differences between linux and windows

    On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:56:02 +0100, Hadron wrote:

    > "DFS" writes:
    >
    >> alinuxworld wrote:
    >>> 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
    >>> click this
    >>> link

    >>
    >> 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?
    >>

    >
    > With pay by click Mac adverts.


    One of Schestowitz's protégés?

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

  6. Re: i wrote an article concerning the differences between linux and windows

    alinuxworld wrote:
    > 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
    > click this
    > link


    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?





  7. Re: i wrote an article concerning the differences between linux andwindows

    alinuxworld wrote:

    > I would just like to inform everybody of an article that i wrote
    > detailing the differences of linux and windows


    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:

    http://www.ubuntu.com/support/paid


    "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 #",
    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.
    http://slated.org

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

    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

  8. Re: i wrote an article concerning the differences between linux and windows


+ Reply to Thread