Windoz or Linux (2 Viewers)

[Gromett]

OK, so what does Linux do for you that Windows won't ?

Its not so much what it will do that sells me as much as the different way it does things is more to my taste.

• I find it much more stable, (however Win 7 was a big improvement).
• Fixes to bugs tend to be quicker.
• Each Linux Distro has a central updating system for all its components and software so I am not continuously blitzed with software update notices.
• Linux doesn't expect you to reboot the whole computer just because you installed some software or upgraded some software.
• Linux is faster and smoother with less bloat
• The software repos have always had something for every new task I have ever wanted to do.
• Windows forces you to do a lot of stuff it's way and you can't remove components that you don't want. Linux just says hey whatever you want just do it.
• Linux doesn't cost me £80 every few years to upgrade.
• Linux updates security issues very very quickly.
• I can choose from a variety of flavours of linux depending on what I am doing.
• I can run all the components of a linux server on my desktop computer natively and easily. (apache/php/mysql) which allows me to test stuff out at full speed without having to upload to the net first.
• Startup and shutdown times are faster.
• No registry to get bunged up with crap.
• I don't have to reinstall linux once a year to get it back up to speed.
• I have less to worry about with regards to security.

That's it off the top of my head just now.

 

[Billy23]

Its not so much what it will do that sells me as much as the different way it does things is more to my taste.

• I find it much more stable, (however Win 7 was a big improvement). Yes!
• Fixes to bugs tend to be quicker. Yes!
• Each Linux Distro has a central updating system for all its components and software so I am not continuously blitzed with software update notices. Yes!
• Linux doesn't expect you to reboot the whole computer just because you installed some software or upgraded some software. Yes!
• Linux is faster and smoother with less bloat Yes!
• The software repos have always had something for every new task I have ever wanted to do.
• Windows forces you to do a lot of stuff it's way and you can't remove components that you don't want. Linux just says hey whatever you want just do it. Yes!
• Linux doesn't cost me £80 every few years to upgrade. Yes!
• Linux updates security issues very very quickly. Yes!
• I can choose from a variety of flavours of linux depending on what I am doing. Yes!
• I can run all the components of a linux server on my desktop computer natively and easily. (apache/php/mysql) which allows me to test stuff out at full speed without having to upload to the net first. Dont know yet!
• Startup and shutdown times are faster. Yes!
• No registry to get bunged up with crap. Correct
• I don't have to reinstall linux once a year to get it back up to speed. Dont Know Yet!
• I have less to worry about with regards to security. Yes!

That's it off the top of my head just now.

As you can see above (in red) I agree :thumb:

Mr Tick59

Yes you are correct, I did burn it to a DVD. Whatever...it works fine.

SO TRY IT!! Oh sorry to shout

 

[hilldweller]

• I find it much more stable, (however Win 7 was a big improvement).

XP here - stable as The Rock.

• Fixes to bugs tend to be quicker
• Does XP have bugs ?
• Each Linux Distro has a central updating system for all its components and software so I am not continuously blitzed with software update notices.
• Occasional - usually Firefox/Thunderbird which just needs my permission.
• Linux doesn't expect you to reboot the whole computer just because you installed some software or upgraded some software.
• Can't recall when I last did that.
• Linux is faster and smoother with less bloat
• Don't know.
• The software repos have always had something for every new task I have ever wanted to do.
• Windows does everything I've ever wanted.
• Windows forces you to do a lot of stuff it's way and you can't remove components that you don't want. Linux just says hey whatever you want just do it.
• Linux also does it it's way.
• Linux doesn't cost me £80 every few years to upgrade.
• XP is 10 years old.
• Linux updates security issues very very quickly.
• I don't do upgrades, if it works don't fix it.
• I can choose from a variety of flavours of linux depending on what I am doing.
• What a balls ache, XP does everything for me.
• I can run all the components of a linux server on my desktop computer natively and easily. (apache/php/mysql) which allows me to test stuff out at full speed without having to upload to the net first.
• I have native apache/php running on this XP locally.
• Startup and shutdown times are faster.
• Don't know, but only once a day.
  
• No registry to get bunged up with crap.
• At last a big plus. I hate the registry and always use .ini files.
  
• I don't have to reinstall linux once a year to get it back up to speed.
• This XP is dated Jan 2008.
• I have less to worry about with regards to security.
• I never worry about security.

Not at all convincing from a POV of deliberately changing your OS for a general purpose desktop system.

But I can see the attraction for something like Pi. I have a home control PC on XP running an apache server that would take a fraction of the power using a Pi if I had the talent to convert all the software to Linux.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gromett]

• I find it much more stable, (however Win 7 was a big improvement).

XP here - stable as The Rock.
I used to see a couple of blue screens on XP. However by the sounds of it I do a bit more with mine.

• Fixes to bugs tend to be quicker
• Does XP have bugs ?
• YES!!! and MS are still releasing security updates for it until April the 14th. After which you will either need to upgrade or will lose security patch options.
  
• Each Linux Distro has a central updating system for all its components and software so I am not continuously blitzed with software update notices.
• Occasional - usually Firefox/Thunderbird which just needs my permission. I was. Java updates, Printer Drivers, Apple iTunes, FireFox, Thunderbird, printer drivers, security software and windows to name just a small handful.
  
• Linux doesn't expect you to reboot the whole computer just because you installed some software or upgraded some software.
• Can't recall when I last did that.
• EVERY BLOODY TIME!!!! i look at a windows computer. You will see it this tuesday (patch tuesday) windows will more than likely force you to reboot.
  
• Linux is faster and smoother with less bloat
• Don't know.
  I do
  
• The software repos have always had something for every new task I have ever wanted to do.
• Windows does everything I've ever wanted.
  It did everything I ever wanted but I had to fight with it all the time. That was the point of my hole response. Why linux is better for me.
  
• Windows forces you to do a lot of stuff it's way and you can't remove components that you don't want. Linux just says hey whatever you want just do it.
• Linux also does it it's way.
  Nope, Linux has many many ways of doing everything. You choose which way you like best. Or if you are particularly choosy you can rewrite the bit you don't like. You do not have the option to change how windows works and don't have access to the source even if you had the programming chops to do anything about it. With windows it is MS's way or the highway.
  
• Linux doesn't cost me £80 every few years to upgrade.
• XP is 10 years old.
• Some of us upgrade in the hopes that MS might eventually get things right. XP was ok. I didn't do Vista as it was an unmitigated cockup. 7 was brilliant on the Microsoft scale of things. 8 is a disaster again. As of next year I hope you upgrade to 7 or stay off the internet.
  
• Linux updates security issues very very quickly.
• I don't do upgrades, if it works don't fix it.
• Get off the internet then you are a danger to everyone else
  
• I can choose from a variety of flavours of linux depending on what I am doing.
• What a balls ache, XP does everything for me.
• Windows does not make a good net server, it is a disaster as a dedicated media center, it struggles to work on a low power netbook etc etc etc. There are linux distributions for every possible type of user is all I was saying. Just because XP is ok for you doesn't mean XP itself is ok.
  
• I can run all the components of a linux server on my desktop computer natively and easily. (apache/php/mysql) which allows me to test stuff out at full speed without having to upload to the net first.
• I have native apache/php running on this XP locally.
• No you don't. You will have something like Xampp or Wamp.
  You can't just download the Apache binary for instance and switch on the service. It has problems as well. Quite often you will develop something on a windows system copy it across to your linux server and it won't work. There are numerous other gotchas. You can't apply patches to a windows install of apache, php or mysql. Gcc is not native to windows so you have issues recompiling if you want to do anything special. I am happy to never have to deal with the nightmare of twisting windows arm to do php devel work for clients.
  
• Startup and shutdown times are faster.
• Don't know, but only once a day.
• When I switch off I don't like to have to wait around anything up to 5 minutes for windows to decide to switch off. Hung network shares or processes. The worst is when windows has done an update and takes forever to shut down.
  
• No registry to get bunged up with crap.
• At last a big plus. I hate the registry and always use .ini files.
• We agree on this one thing :thumb:
  
• I don't have to reinstall linux once a year to get it back up to speed.
• This XP is dated Jan 2008.
• And you have never had to reinstall it on that computer since 2008? Either you haven't installed any software on it EVER!! or you are happy with a very slow computer. I used to re-install once a year just to get windows back up to speed.
• I have less to worry about with regards to security.
• I never worry about security.
• Uh oh!!!!!.oh::Sad:
  

Replies in Green:thumb:

As I have said before. Linux is not for everyone. But nor is a Mac or an IBM Mainframe. Each to their own. I just say that Linux works great for me and a lot of other people. A lot of people who slam linux do so from a lack of knowledge and experience. Or haven't used it recently.

I am not trying to twist anyones arm to move over to it. All I can say is that Linux IS a desktop operating system and that it fulfills all my requirements and that of many others. You don't need to be a techy to use it. You don't need to use obtuse command lines to get it to work. You don't need to constantly fiddle with it to keep it working. There are way to many negative myths about linux..

Install it. Install your software, use your software and forgot its running on linux.

If I get time later I may attempt to put a quick video together for you.

 

[emjaiuk]

I am just wondering if this is worth doing?

I am pretty sure I could put together a USB drive that boots multiple versions of linux and include a virus checker/backup and fixer utilities on it as well.

Let me know if anyone would be interested in a USB flash drive that could do this?

I've only just seen this. I'd be very interested in paying for one of these. I've an old Acer that runs like treacle on XP (re-installed twice).

Malcolm

 

[Gromett]

I am just wondering if this is worth doing?

I am pretty sure I could put together a USB drive that boots multiple versions of linux and include a virus checker/backup and fixer utilities on it as well.

Let me know if anyone would be interested in a USB flash drive that could do this?

I started work on this with the idea of creating a couple of USB flash drives for people who wanted them. Got the DD commands and grub sorted and and while checking for a setting on google for writing to flash drives and keeping them bootable found this.

http://www.pendrivelinux.com/yumi-multiboot-usb-creator/

It allows you to download loads of linux distributions and install them all to a single USB memory stick...

These are the ones I would put on if I was doing it.
Linux Mint (Shame they only seem to automate the main edition)
Debian Live (If its anything like debian its a core linux distro)
Ubuntu (Using their own Desktop manager)
Kbuntu (Using KDE)
DSL (Damn small linux)
System Rescue CD

I would also put a decent selection of the AV installs.

Clonezilla for partition level backups. Handy for after a fresh install or backing up your laptop to restore completely to its existing settings.

Parted Magic - Partition manager

Ultimate Boot CD - I have had success with this in the past fixing borked windows installs.

But the selection is huge and you can choose which ones to try.

I won't be doing any work on this as it has already been done by other linux bods.:thumb:

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[hilldweller]

I've only just seen this. I'd be very interested in paying for one of these. I've an old Acer that runs like treacle on XP (re-installed twice).

Malcolm

That was an exercise I went through a few years ago -- "AH this is old crap computer, slow, Linux will solve it".

Guess what, it was an old crap computer running linux. You can't expect a complex desktop to run a load faster just by changing OS is the conclution I came to. Old crap computer is still around with XP on it again.

 

[Gromett]

That was an exercise I went through a few years ago -- "AH this is old crap computer, slow, Linux will solve it".

Guess what, it was an old crap computer running linux. You can't expect a complex desktop to run a load faster just by changing OS is the conclution I came to. Old crap computer is still around with XP on it again.

Linux CAN breath a fresh breath of life into old computers. There are linux distributions aimed at these old computers that can run in as little as 128Mb of memory. Of course they don't have all the latest features (bloat) of a modern OS but it will run very quickly.

You just have to choose a suitable distribution. You obviously didn't when you were looking at linux.

 

[Gromett]

Just saw this one Brian .

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/5...tation-infected-malware-russian-astronaut.htm

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[hilldweller]

Just saw this one Brian .

But did you read it properly. As well you know the virus that attacked the centrifuges in Iran was targeted at Siemens PLCs running them, it would not know how to harm an XP machine, in fact, as you know it was designed to be invisible so it could reach it's target controllers.

A Daily Mail quality article.

 

[Gromett]

But did you read it properly. As well you know the virus that attacked the centrifuges in Iran was targeted at Siemens PLCs running them, it would not know how to harm an XP machine, in fact, as you know it was designed to be invisible so it could reach it's target controllers.

A Daily Mail quality article.

You are correct up to a point. The target of the virus was the PLC's but the attack vector was windows PC's.

To put it in a context that most people will understand. You could in a kind of way equate it to a nuclear missile. With the windows PC's being the delivery agent (rocket) and the warhead being the virus payload attacking the PLC's. Without the rocket (XP) the warhead is pretty darn useless as it would have no way to get to its target. Because XP has so many security flaws and is ubiquitous it was an ideal carrier to get the virus to the PLC's.

I don't understand why you slammed the article. I see nothing factually inaccurate there even on a second reading. You are always so negative

I am particularly interested in security and read many articles daily on the subject to keep up to date. This was no red top scare story just a curious bit of history which I found interesting. The fact that stuxnet had escaped into space and it was windows XP that dunnit

 

[Gromett]

PS: Brian, my favourite website for technical articles of all types is arstechnica.

They did many write ups as the stuxnet story unfolded.
Here is a good one I read there a while back.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...stuxnet-the-most-menacing-malware-in-history/

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Billy23]

I know that a lot of people sing XP`s praises from on high and jolly good luck to them....But, if they continue to run XP after April of next year, they will not get security updates and that's fine...for them. I would however ask that they stay in a cupboard with the door shut and do not under any circumstances switch the computer on as they will be a danger to us all.

 

[hilldweller]

I don't understand why you slammed the article. I see nothing factually inaccurate there even on a second reading. You are always so negative

Sorry about that. Speed reading because it's OS wars time. I was amazed at the number of laptops in the SS when I viewed that wonderful tour by the Asian girl. If they are not vetted, like any decent company on Earth would do then they get what they deserve, not fair to blame the OS. NASA is a very sloppy and corrupt organisation, ask those dead astronauts that got fried to death in a shuttle. And the three that fried to death years earlier on the ground.

Do we debate at length petrol vs diesel ? No.

So why OSes ?

"So negative" because I put an alternative view, I call that positive. If anyone posts a good message "like" is what I type. If I see something dangerous or I feel like a bit of sport I'll post an opposing view.

Next time I read "I have converted my MH from petrol to diesel" I will be compelled to post "And just what will diesel do that petrol would not".