5 Things Linux does better than Windows

[oldskool]

If you look at my post on this thread (post # 17) Mak, you will see that I made a point that I don't think anyone here is trying to change anyone else's mind, just point/counterpoint. Good discussion is all I see going on personally.

 

[Jayce]

Alright for those who talk about Windows Updates, lets not forget that Ubuntu gets a ton of them. I remember when i used to not boot back into Ubuntu for a couple of weeks and have well over 100 updates that would have to be done.

Even after a brand new install of Ubuntu i have seen well over 100 updates that had to be applied to have the latest patches. So Linux is not without updates either.

Well, yeah. Any OS is going to have updates. And even the updates can be argued down further too. Example: Most Linux exploits are patched before the user even knows they exist. Yet, there's exploits in Windows that have existed for far too long and still aren't patched.

Even at the end of a distro's life cycle, even an LTS and you have 295 updates coming your way, it still only takes 4 or 5 minutes to grab them. Even if a kernel update is in there too. Of course, you have the option to customize which download server you grab them from which allows you to have the speedy times.

 

[Kharn]

That at least is true most Linux distros and open source programs they have a good attitude to responsible disclosure of security vulnerabilities and patching of them. But on the same note I have seen some seriously sloppy patch code that dose not exactly do anything or offers up a few new vunderabillities.

All security issues are a pain in the arse and every OS an program has them, but a strongly enfroced 6 month release cycle even on community projects causes sloppy rushed coding not to mention seriously spotty code.

 

[zmatt]

Not to mention broken features. Remember when Ubuntu first had dual head support? It didn't work at all the first few releases and I think its still hit or miss. Windows and MacOS wouldn't release like that. They come out "when they are ready". I think set release dates are bad for development. it rushes code, leaves holes open, slows down the program, and leaves missing features. Also each Ubuntu release is less like a major version and more like a service pack. There isn't enough different between version to justify it.

 

[KSoD]

Sorry oldskool, i missed reading every post.

Jayce,

Yes you can sit here and argue further that some of the exploits are patched before they are known and all that. But my point goes back to Post #5 & Post #8 where they make only reference to Windows Updates and Patch Tuesday. Yet not a single mention of the Updates that Linux can get and the amount.

Yeah it may only take a few minutes to download them but depending on the system and the update, they can take jsut as long as WU to apply. I know from experience on my old rig. Applying a few of those updates took just as long as WU to work.

My point wasnt to bash Linux Updates. It was simply to say that they also exist and to make comments about Patch Tuesday and forget that Linux has more patches released over the same month than Windows is not fair.

Saxon i will agree that yes they are good about releasing their info. But then again so is Microsoft. They at least do not hide and cower when a exploit is found, ignore it and secretly release a patch and then say that it was never a issue in the first place. Sorry i just described Apple.....

Microsoft will release Vunerability Information. They have a whole website dedicated to it in fact. So they do not cower and they do give you this information. Yeah they may not be as quick to release a patch, but at least they are not afraid to admit that they exist.

My main thing is that no matter what there is going to be points that can be argued about both. To say 5 Reasons to switch to Linux is a joke and nothing more than a way to start topics like this and get traffic to their website....



Had to do it....

 

[zmatt]

Sorry oldskool, i missed reading every post.

Jayce,

Yes you can sit here and argue further that some of the exploits are patched before they are known and all that. But my point goes back to Post #5 & Post #8 where they make only reference to Windows Updates and Patch Tuesday. Yet not a single mention of the Updates that Linux can get and the amount.

Yeah it may only take a few minutes to download them but depending on the system and the update, they can take jsut as long as WU to apply. I know from experience on my old rig. Applying a few of those updates took just as long as WU to work.

My point wasnt to bash Linux Updates. It was simply to say that they also exist and to make comments about Patch Tuesday and forget that Linux has more patches released over the same month than Windows is not fair.

Saxon i will agree that yes they are good about releasing their info. But then again so is Microsoft. They at least do not hide and cower when a exploit is found, ignore it and secretly release a patch and then say that it was never a issue in the first place. Sorry i just described Apple.....

Microsoft will release Vunerability Information. They have a whole website dedicated to it in fact. So they do not cower and they do give you this information. Yeah they may not be as quick to release a patch, but at least they are not afraid to admit that they exist.

My main thing is that no matter what there is going to be points that can be argued about both. To say 5 Reasons to switch to Linux is a joke and nothing more than a way to start topics like this and get traffic to their website....



Had to do it....

QFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm loving this thread, there are a lot of great things being said on both sides. I wish all discussions were more like this.

Here is my take;

Windows can be just as secure, if not more so than Linux if good common sense is taken and your security programs are in place. The age old assertion that Linux and OSX don't get viruses is misleading and simply not true.


Getting back to package management, I am a big fan of the windows .exe system. In windows dependency **** is almost a non-issue. The only dependency problems I have encountered are with the M$ C++ redistributable and .Net framework, and that's because a lot of programs use them. other than that its a non issue. I can't tell you how many times I have had dependency troubles in Linux. program X needs Lib Z v2.01 and Program Y needs Lib Z v2.02 and you can't have both versions at the same time. WTF!?! In this regard I think the Linux community is like Apple, whenever someone brings up this problem they all stick their fingers in their ears and and scream LALALALALALALA.

 

[Kharn]

I know exactly about the MS security site I use it a lot, mak. I wasn't having a go at windows I was saying that while MS is closed source it allows vulnerabilities to go undiscovered for longer while in Linux an BSD they get found quicker but as MS pays people to fix the security issues they often get patched quicker and more securely - it's a catch 22 situation what do you want cheep an quick or slightly slower and better quality.

I like the .exe just as much as zmatt unix was designed and built around (initially) professional computer use in lab's, educational establishments and the military and it was developed at a time when not every body even knew exactly what a computer was outside places that where interested in them so no package manager was built in directly and they are having to be hammered on after the fact some people have got it spot on FreeBSD has it's ports tree and PCBSD has it's PBI installer set both will grab dependencies and install them at the same time (not 100% accurate last statement when it comes to PBI's, but close enough as they are packaged up at the same time as the PBI in made).

I just wish every time I had to install something I didn't have to use the terminal there are times i like to stay in a GUI, when setting up a remote server or updating one SSH terminal sessions are quicker and easier to use than RDC. Some times GUI's are easier and faster to work with, that is EXACTLY what we should be aiming for terminal is not for every one.

 

[KSoD]

True. While they do have disclosure they are not as open as quickly as they should be. But they are still more open than Apple.

 

[Kharn]

Very true apples approach is a farce.

But let's not turn this epic high quality thread into a apple bashing session.

 

[Jayce]

Not to mention broken features. Remember when Ubuntu first had dual head support? It didn't work at all the first few releases and I think its still hit or miss. Windows and MacOS wouldn't release like that. They come out "when they are ready". I think set release dates are bad for development. it rushes code, leaves holes open, slows down the program, and leaves missing features. Also each Ubuntu release is less like a major version and more like a service pack. There isn't enough different between version to justify it.

zmatt, I've enjoyed the logical points that everybody is making to the pros and cons of both Linux and Windows platforms. But taking the stance that "Windows only releases things that are ready" whereas saying Linux releases sloppy distro's every 6 months is so far from accurate it's unreal.

So, in response, I'm going to respond to you with 1 word that'll completely break down the point you just made.


"Vista"


Yes yes yes I know it's not so bad now, and I even run it now with decent success, but it's also 3 years old. When it was released the majority of the Microsoft market wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole - and for good reason too. Also, keep in mind... 9.04 was released a few days ago... but Ubuntu developers are allocated in a way so there are developers looking far into the future (beyond 9.10) and others who have been concentrating on 9.10 for the last year. They work a lot farther ahead than you think. If 9.04 comes out, they take a week off, then go back and try to slap together 9.10 in 6 months time, I could see that point. But that's not how things are. Things are organized at a much higher degree than you think.

Speaking from experience with having spare computers and testing out operating systems and software, I can say from what I've experienced, Linux beta releases are often as stable as finalized products by Microsoft. Every time I install a beta release by Ubuntu on my spare rig and test it out, I'm always wondering how it's even considered beta. Take it as you want, argue it as you want, but it's what I've experienced so... it is what it is.

I'm not really seeing how saying certain Ubuntu releases have been more like service packs is a bad thing. It doesn't cost anything. It's a simple download. The same way an actual service pack for XP/Vista is. If the distro costed 280 bucks like Windows did, and it was pumped out every 6 months, all right... I'd tack a -1 for Ubuntu then. But that's not how things are.

At the end of the day, use what works. The reality is, all 3 main platforms work. I own XP Pro/Vista Ultimate/Mac OSX/Ubuntu 8.10 + 9.04 at home. I use them all for different reasons. It's how you use them and utilize them to benefit your needs that makes an OS suddenly turn a golden color in your eyes. Some people's slice of cake is that of Microsoft, others Mac, etc etc etc.