5 Things Linux does better than Windows

[farinha]

Well, never had that kind of instability in linux, but I can tell you that I already had BSODs on Vista. By the way, how many times did you had a kernel panic in linux? How about a BSOD in windows?
There are exploits on linux, never said otherwise, but I don't have to wait a month to get the fix like in windows.
Yes if you have a good router and a good third party applications windows is pretty safe. With linux I don't need a good router and third party apps to be safe.
You talk about stability but how many servers run windows and instead of *nix? Most enterprise servers use *nix because of stability. Ask any server admins which OS they prefer to use, windows or linux.
Not to mention the file system used by windows and linux. How many times a month do you have to defrag your disk using fat32 or ntfs? I would say, at least once. In linux you don't have to... to me this also counts as stability...
I often have my linux machine running more than a month without making a restart, and installing all kind of software/drivers in between. If I get windows running more than two weeks it will be slow like ****. Linux uses way less resources than windows. I have a PIV with 1GB of RAM and a ATI 9600XT, and I can use all kind of software without lack of performance, even with compiz on, which by the way has a lot more visual effects than Vista. I have the same hardware for 6 years now and I haven't noticed any lack of performance when I upgraded my ubuntu for the new release. Don't need to say what would happen if I tried to run Vista on it.

What do you mean by beta software in it? At least it has some software you can use out of the box, office, pidgin, k3b, etc. You don't like those apps install another one. At least you have something to work with after install. Can't say the same thing about windows.

W7 will install drivers out of the box, linux does it for some time now. I'm talking about the present not the future...

 

[Jayce]

Cedgea cost money and doesn't work all the time. Wine doesn't work that well either.

Agreed. But in my experience, Wine has worked half decently. But to this day I haven't used Wine in at least 2 years, so I'm sure it's improved since I've used it, and even back then it was fine with better than average success.

Windows isn't in a beta stage all the time. If you look at Major Ubuntu relewaes (or any distro for that matter) you will find some form of beta software in it, you will also find that a lot fo stuff is a work in progress. When windows comes out it always has its full functionality. It might have some security and stability issues, but it has a ncie polished and complete feel. Linux always feels like its being worked on. It's never done in that sense. Always cobbled together and jury-rigged.

Honestly... I'm trying here. I'm honestly trying to look at this and find some sort of "oh yeah!" but unfortunately, I'm coming up with nothing. Vista has been out for 3 years and only recently became even remotely worthwhile to highly consider. Meanwhile, Ubuntu cranks out a new distro version every 6 months. Yet, somehow, every 6 months is a solid climb uphill, while Microsoft has several years in between each release and seems to take steps backward all the time. You can argue that Microsoft has more customers all you want that makes it difficult to handle the updates and bug fixes. But Microsoft is also one of the most powerful companies of the world with a fat bank account they're sitting on, while projects like Ubuntu are open source and have minute fractions of funds to work with.

Even since the early Ubuntu releases, I've always felt they were really solid, and were always incredibly stable. In fact, I have a spare rig that I test the alpha/beta versions of Ubuntu on, and each time those guys just nail it... even in testing stages, let alone finished stages.

As for the drivers, you sir are a luck many. I have never had a Linux install work with the wifi on the first go. It takes an average of 3 hours of work to get the wifi up. Windows 7 will install wifi drivers automatically no fuss.

Well, I'll go half way with you here. Wifi has been the one area where Linux has been playing a severe game of "catch up" on. However, a lot of it is due to manufacturer's as well for not releasing drivers. It's the same ball game I encountered with Vista. I have a pretty decent sound card but the 64 bit version of Vista doesn't support it, yet 32 bit version does. So I was stuck because Turtle Beach decided not to crank out 64 bit versions just yet. I received an email 2-3 weeks ago saying they were finally beginning development on it. But I have already dropped to the 32 bit version so I at least had sound support when playing games.

However, back to wifi, it's been a jaw-dropping experience to see just how many wifi drivers were picked up in the recent kernel upgrades. And this isn't Ubuntu specific, this is Linux wide. Within the last year or two Linux has been acknowledged as a solid OS that's a decent alternative that most people are calling "grandma approved", and the more recent versions of Linux, particularly Ubuntu 9.04, certainly confirms that there's no stopping them.

And to my knowledge, I read somewhere a while back that Linux supports more hardware than Windows. Figure that one out.

Linux isn't as secure as you guys think either. Ask any server or IT guy. Linux like OSX and Unix has security through obscurity. There are plently of exploits for linux machines. How many of them are being actively sued is another question. It is very possible that many linux users have a virus or trojan and don't know it because they assume they can't get it.

Actually... I am a "IT Guy." Linux is absolutely more secure than Windows. There's no doubt about that, no denying that, and no arguing that. But, as I've said earlier here or in another thread (I forget), Linux is not perfect. No operating system is perfect. But the nature of the operating systems, excluding the popularity fact that Windows has working against it, there's no doubt that Linux is more secure than Windows, just by the nature of its design. Does that make me hate Windows? Not at all. I run XP on two laptops, XP on a spare desktop, and Vista on my main rig dual booting with Ubuntu. I just use logic when I'm web surfing and do regular scans - the exact same thing I would do with Linux if it was in Window's shoes, in terms of popularity and the big red target on it's forehead.

Windows with a good router firewall and up-to-date and competent security programs is about as secure as you can get. It's also more stable. Windows Vista and up sandboxes the drivers and APIs, so an error or exception that would crash Linux only require a service restart in Vista. Can Linux survive a video driver crash without a kernel panic? Nope, I've seen it happen. Vista will.

I recently had driver issues with Vista, with it locking up hardcore and crashing on me. Fortunately I was able to fix it, and it was a similar process as it would be with Ubuntu had the same thing happened. If you boot to Ubuntu and the driver is not present, it'll boot to low graphics mode. So, log in, download the darn driver, and you're good to go. If all else fails - there's failsafe mode. In Vista, you boot to safe mode, take the driver out, boot up without error (but a crappy driver-less looking mode) and you download the newest driver. I've encountered both scenarios, and both of them worked fine for me. Both meaning Vista/Ubuntu.

By the way, do some research and find out what kind of OS those awesome "router firewalls" are running. You'll be surprised what a lot of them run.

I really don't hate Linux. I think its a great project. But before I use it every day or recommend it to laymen I need some major changes made in the usability department.

I can say with absolute certainty I honestly find Ubuntu to be laid out more intelligently than Microsoft's counterparts. There's a repository with thousands of programs. Right there for you to download. Majority of them are free, and often times are just as comparable, if not better than the Windows counterpart. You can actually customize your desktop, and I'm not talking about that windowblinds crap, I'm talking about actually controlling your desktop, managing it the way you want to. Oh, and let's not forget about Compiz.

If you want a good *nix OS try FreeBSD. Those guys get it.

Kudos to FreeBSD for the tremendous work they've done, but... when you have something that works, why change? ~4 year Ubuntu user.

 

[Patiszerg]

After spending a day cleaning out a trojan from my good ole windows XP and ultimately having to reinstall XP I'm really looking into getting Linux and trying it out... Keep up the replies and thanks for the info.

 

[Jayce]

After spending a day cleaning out a trojan from my good ole windows XP and ultimately having to reinstall XP I'm really looking into getting Linux and trying it out... Keep up the replies and thanks for the info.

Something I do now if I keep an image file handy for my Windows machines. One thing I can't stand is installing Windows manually, because exactly halfway through it asks you for the key, asks you questions, etc. Why can't it ask you at the beginning so I can utilize those 2 hours better than having to worry about when XP will decide to ask me when it wants the key?

I keep a basic image of XP on my spare rig and Vista on my main rig. What this does is I have a copy of the entire OS install on an external hard drive. It's only basic though. But it's much easier spending 20 minutes restoring a basic image of XP with the drivers downloaded than having to install XP from scratch and an hour and a half later install the drivers and my apps and whatnot.

After a HDD failure (back your stuff up!) this past weekend I stored my Vista image, along with all of my Steam games, settings, along with other games I have loaded on the computer. Overall, it was a 45gb image. Took me 30 minutes to push it from an external USB hard drive back to my computer. Sure beats re-doing everything.

The ironic part? The imaging software was free. Oh, and based on Linux.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Honestly... I'm trying here. I'm honestly trying to look at this and find some sort of "oh yeah!" but unfortunately, I'm coming up with nothing. Vista has been out for 3 years and only recently became even remotely worthwhile to highly consider. Meanwhile, Ubuntu cranks out a new distro version every 6 months. Yet, somehow, every 6 months is a solid climb uphill, while Microsoft has several years in between each release and seems to take steps backward all the time. You can argue that Microsoft has more customers all you want that makes it difficult to handle the updates and bug fixes. But Microsoft is also one of the most powerful companies of the world with a fat bank account they're sitting on, while projects like Ubuntu are open source and have minute fractions of funds to work with.

I have been running vista for a year now and the only bsods I have gotten were caused by me pushing an overclock to far so they aren't Vista's fault.

Ubuntu may have a release every 6 months but I fail to see the advantage in releasing a new os in short arbitrary intervals. Inf act you could make a case for some of the Ubuntu releases amounting to little more than service packs.

I installed Ubuntu 7.10 o my previous laptop back when it was first released. After dodging one bullet by deliberately buying an Atheros wifi card that worked out of the box I still had to spend an hour or two getting the aTI video card drivers working. Initially I used Ubuntu a lot but after a while I found myself using it less and less since it didn't offer me anything I couldn't do in windows.

When I recently decided to replace xp on my MSI Wind I considered using ubuntu netbook remix but ended up using Windows 7. I mounted the 7 iso with daemon tool in xp, started the installation process and then rebooted to finish installing. Once it was installed all I had to do was connect to Windows update which downloaded the wifi drivers, everything else worked right out of the box including Aero. The whole installation process took an hour at most and this is for a beta os.

I don't think Windows is perfect, it's far from it. However I think people are far to quick to bash Windows , particularly Vista, while at the same time they are willing to ignore or dismiss any issues Linux has.

Recently I tried PC-BSD based of Saxons recommendation and i have to say I was impressed. I agree with Zmatt, they just seem to get it. While I don't think it is perfect either I do think they are heading in the right direction.

 

[kmote]

Windows and Linux are both good but obviously neither is perfect. Windows is expensive and can play games whereas Linux is free but cannot play games.
Personally I find linux quicker, more secure and more stable. Predictably it's very good for a server but Windows arguably provides a nicer desktop experience.
The difference between the quality of software on the two systems is negligable with maybe a couple of exceptions but the command line and tools on linux are infinitely better.
Most of the time I choose linux; it makes more sense to me but I am going to buy Vista Home Premium so I can play some games again on my main computer.

 

[oldskool]

I tried twice to load FreeBSD and no go. Ubuntu 8.04, 8.10, and 9.04, no problem. Fedora 10, no problem. Not sure why that is, I used the same ISO burner (FreeISO or something don't remember).

And regarding people too quick to "bash" Windows (specifically Vista), I am not sure that anyone here is bashing Vista. To the contrary, it seems that people are giving their opinions, and I regard them no matter the side personally speaking.

Take Zmatt; I highly respect him and his opinion, and when he says he doesn't care for Ubuntu as much as Vista I totally respect that. He gave valid reasons pro and con why he liked/disliked features of Windows and Linux and that is totally cool as far as I see it.

I picked Zmatt, because I have found that he voices direct answers to direct questions, and even though he is a "fanboi" (KIDDING ), I value what he says as he is very knowledgeable.

Now to opinions:

My opinion (just as valid as anyone's in my opinion) is that yes both Windows and Linux have shortcomings and strengths. I don't even need to subscribe to the huge bulleted list of reasons yay or nay WHY I even like it. I just like Linux these days and realize it's strengths and weaknesses, and CHOOSE to use it for my reasons, which is why ANYONE should do the same, and everyone else respect that.

But a healthy discussion such is this isn't bashing IMO.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

I wasn't referring to this discussion when I said vista bashing, that was more referring to the attitude the average person has towards Vista and the attitudes that a lot of Linux users I know (who aren't members of this forum) have.

This is an interesting discussion because people are providing their honest opinions abut Linux and windows without resorting to the fighting that typically happens in these situations.

 

[oldskool]

^ Indeed.

Some good people and I have all the respect for everyone in this particular thread especially, there are others (many others) in the forum I also respect but all the people
thus far posting here are good people who can point/counterpoint without 'tude and that's a good thing.

So back on topic:

I like Ubuntu because it :

1. It kicks Windows' collective a**
2. It kicks Windows' collective a**
3. It kicks Windows' collective a**
4. It kicks Windows' collective a**
5. It kicks Windows' collective a**

lol just had to be a smarta** !

 

[farinha]

It's not that I like to bash Vista, but I'm more tolerant to the linux bugs because it's free. To me it doesn't make sense to pay for a OS that requires a lot more powerful hardware to run it while I can run a free OS with my current rig and do everything I need. Of course this fits me because I don't game and I don't use any program specific for windows, like photoshop or cad. I know that linux has it's limitations and has a lot to improve, but so does windows. Like I said in a previous post you use what fits your needs best.

Regarding your problems installing the ati drivers, at that time it was harder to make an ati card work, but again it wasn't linux fault, simply ati haven't released decent drivers for linux. In the other hand nvidia cards were a lot easier. If all hardware manufacturers release drivers for linux you wouldn't have a tenth of the problems you have today. The same thing about games, it's not that linux doesn't run games, simply the game houses only do it for windows, but there are a few exceptions. You have a native release of quake for linux and it runs as good as in windows.


I don't want to force anyone to use linux, I'm the only one running linux in my family and between my friends and I never forced anyone to use it instead of windows. I just can't be quiet when someone says it's linux fault because my wireless card or my video card doesn't work and I have to input some commands in the terminal when I only have to do a couple of clicks in windows. Well, if the vendor had released the drivers for linux it would work without a problem, and at least linux it's open source and the community can try to release a driver that makes the card work often with some bugs but at least you can use it, for example the ATI drivers sometime ago. In the other hand if the vendor doesn't release the drivers for windows you can throw your card away. If I remember right you couldn't use a lot of hardware in Vista because of the lack of drivers, like sb audigy. Was it Vista's fault? In my opinion no, it was the manufacturer's fault. Often people confuses when the responsibility of the SO ends and when the hardware manufacturer responsibility starts. When someone says "I don't use linux because there aren't games for it" or "I don't use linux because xpto card doesn't have drivers for linux" I say sure, that's a valid argument. Just don't say "Linux sucks because my card doesn't work".

My advice for someone that is going to buy a new rig and is considering to install linux on it just do some research and buy hardware that has drivers for it. For intance, you can use this site:
Linux-drivers.org - Linux Hardware Compatibility Lists & Linux Drivers