p> (1) Total control of the OS. If I do have a problem, I can upgrade or
p> fix myself any and all parts, without having to depend on some
p> upgrade, reinstall, or buy a new version. For instance, if I need a
p> new kernel to support x options, I can do this. If I need a new X
p> that supports new features of improves performance in certain areas,
p> I can do this.. If I need xpatch, but not patch my entire system, I
p> can do this. If I need to customize configuration parameters to allow
p> on certain functionality for users, I can do this. None of these are
p> options on Windows. You install what Windows gives you and usually
p> this means an update to a newer version of Windows, which means new
p> rollouts to every desktop. Patches from MS are all or none, in many
p> cases and I can only customize what Windows allows. I cannot do
p> incremental upgrading at all.
However there is extremely rare occasions when user need total control of
the OS. There is no necessary to upgrade windows microkernel, upgrading
certain part of interface with hardware is upgrading/installing driver.
There is no necessary to do incremental upgrading because it often lead to
compatibility problems. The ability to replace parts of OS deffinitely is
not advantage. It is way to get advantages but it is way to get problems.
Guess why there is never questions/answer in Windows newsgroups: "It is not
working?" - "Yeah, install kernel version X.Y.Z on distro A or P.Q.R on
p> (2) Security: Virus problems, firewalls: In the four years I have
p> been running Linux, I have NEVER had a virus, period!!! How many
p> Windows users can say this?
I Windows (and linux too) user. I never had virus since times of MS DOS.
Most viruses targetted on Windows because:
1. It is most poular.
2. There are most count of stupid users who able to run suspicious
executable just because it named "britney_spears_naked.txt.safe.exe".
Once Linux get more popular, once it's applications get more functions like
Word's VBA it will be same amount of viruses for Linux.
p> Windows firewalls are not customizable. Sure you can use the options
p> you are given from some interface, but that is not purely
p> customizable. I can control each and every port with Linux using
IPChains or IPTables,
p> Heck I can even see the source code and create my own extensions.
p> Why do
p> you think most routers are running Linux, like Cisco?
Thinking that good software is only Linux prerrogative? Just look on Agnitum
Outpost Firewall for example.
p> (3) Installation of new software: Never requires a reboot.
In fact reboot it is stupid behavior introduced by Microsoft, and many
stupidly follow it. 99% of Windows software actually not needed reboot. This
is question to put or not to put checkbox in the InstallShield or
WiseInstaller near words "require reboot".
p> On a single machine this might not be a problem. Try rolling a new
p> software out to 25-1000 machines and have to reboot them.
Oh. I have 200 machines that running certain software in Linux. Upgrading
all 200 not easy way. Or i need to force user stop working, roll on local
copy, then run again. On each for 200 machines. Another solution to run soft
over nfs. There is another problem, after changing executables on nfs we
need to close programs, unmount nfs mountpoints, upgrade software, mount
nfs, then run again. This option is not better that Windows'es.
p> Oh, wait a minute, with Linux I can remotely control everything on a
p> client desktop.
Windows RemoteDesktop. Windows terminal server. Same level of control. And
work significantly faster than Linux X over slow connections.
p> Heck, We can use Linux terminals and Terminal services
p> with Linux and control practically everything, and never have to touch
p> the user's desktop. I know, that doesn't save you any time at all does
p> You can BUY terminal services for Windows, and get maybe 75 users on
p> a single server. Largo, Florida is running over 400 clients and now
p> police cars on a dual Zeon server with 2 gig of Ram. Try that on
p> (4) Stability: Windows may try as they like but no version is as
p> stable as Linux, period.
BS. Linux on desktop failing with same rate as Windows on desktop. In some
hands less, in some hands more. Personally i'm sometimes able to kill or
hang entrie X-subsystem with Kylix debugger while debugging certain
programs. Few times it was total hang-up when even network connect was not
possible. Stability of Linux desktop - myth, not more.
p> Windows 2000 was pretty stable until I installed security patches from
p> MS. That was why I made my final and complete decision to run
p> Linux full time on the desktop. Servers have been Linux for years.
Windows servers have been running for years also. Until i switched to
company which work with Linux we have certain amount of W'NT 4.0 servers
which runtime was about year each. There was pair of interrupts when there
was power failure or company relocated into new office.
p> (5) Cost. It is hard to beat free, verses 100s of dollars, both for
p> initial installations and upgrade cost for each and every machine.
That 100$ will be spent on solving of various problems. What american
programmer salary per hour? Imagine $20/hr. When that programmer spend only
5 hours on doing something Linux specific (for example compiling Qt - 7
hours on C700, or guessing
operly) Linux advantage is wanish.
p> (6) A plethora of free software and utilities. Nearly everything you
p> need for Windows cost you. Nearly eveything you need for Linux is
There are plethora of free software for Windows.
p> (7) More secure Internet experience. Viruses are almost never even
p> heard of on Linux. Trojans are there, but easily customizable
p> firewalls are a CD,download, or DVD away. And they are free.
p> Running a Windows machine on the internet is a gamble period. You may
p> say that you have never had x happen (which I would doubt), but how
p> many millions of Windows users are constantly plagued by security
p> breeches and viruses? Even one of MS' former VPs stated that Windows
p> is a totally flawed system in terms of security and will be until the
p> entire Windows infrastructure is totally rewritten.
Just use right firewall and not run suspicious content, okay? I'm browsing
internet regularly and securely. And about VP's... i don't trust to them if
they woriking on Bill or not working on Bill.
p> Linux with Unix roots, was meant to be secure from the beginning.
p> Sure, there are some vunerabilities in Linux and badly written code
p> as well. But compared to Windows, it is like comparing the holes in a
p> doughnut to Swiss cheese. That would too, bring us back to root
p> causes. Most security problems in Linux are modular, while in Windows
p> it is inherent.
Did you saw Windows code to deffinitely say that it is inherent?
p> In other words, I can modularly replace any part or the whole of a Linux
p> system, from the kernel to the Graphical engine, to any or all of my
p> software. This is not possible on Windows, it requires a new version of
p> (8) Better support of open standards. Linux is based much more on the
p> open standards like ECMA and W3C which the open source world work
p> closely with.
p> Microsoft is a lesson in being propreitary, which = lock in.
Personally i'm don't see negative consequences that something inside windows
is not belong to open standards.
p> Most companies do not want to be held hostage to a single entity.
p> With MS, that is a garantee, with Open source, is a garantee not to
p> be locked in.
As long MS will be stable, they will be stable. And that why they will
remain with windows and both make millons while linux still crawling under
the dinning table and loudly scream.
p> In closing:
p> The only downside to Linux, is that some software is only offered on
p> Windows. Dreamweaver is a good example, as is Adobe acrobat. You can
p> Lin4Win or VMWare these, but this is the only area where Windows may
p> have to be a consideration. For Word Processing, Spreadsheets,
p> Presentations, development, email, Web browsing and general overall
p> business use, Linux is a much better option, plus it can save you
p> hundreds of dollars per client desktop.
p> Internet wise, Windows has been and will be, a gamble. Game wise,
p> Windows wins, hands down. This is not Linux's fault, it is where the
p> game developers are and what they write for. This will change as
p> Linux grows in popularity, but for now, for games, it is Windows or
p> nothing. Mac has more gaming titles available, but it too, lags far
p> behind Windows.
Guess why there is "some software"? Guess why it feature rich or why games
on windows? Because of development tools, IDE's etc.
p> Another area where Windows wins, is what is referred to as "trained
p> There are more Windows admins than Linux ones. The problem is how
p> many good
p> Windows admins are there? The dependence upon GUI interfaces and
p> point and click, does not make a very good admin, IMHO. Many so
p> called Windows admins do not know how to write a batch file, run FTP
p> from a command line, or write installation and configuration scripts.
p> MS has been very good in making people believe they are experts, when
p> indeed they are power uses.
Then they not admins.
p> Same goes for programmers. Many have never touched a command line,
p> written a make file, or done any incremental builds and links. If it
p> isn't GUI and drag and drop, they are lost. That to me, is an
p> untrained programmer or some of which might be better described as point
p> and click, drag and drop
p> Gurus :)
If machine can do something for programmer, it must do not to force him to
write makefiles. CBX fine example, programmer not need to write that
makefiles, he not need to lose time to learn how that files should be
written, he may use his time to solve real problems instead fight with
results of laziness of creators of development tools. The system that
required that human must do something when system can do it itself - flawed
system by deffinition.
p> Still that being said, Windows has traditionally been available for
p> the average user, which means that they will have more exprience with
p> Windows than Linux. However, this too, is changing, due to the
p> increased use and deployment of Linux and Open Source.
p> This is what you call an assesment JQP, not based on opinions read
p> from some sponsered site, but rather experience. When MS sent out a
p> survey form, asking how they could get us Linux users to switch from
p> Linux, we told them the same things.
Eventually MS learn from good sides of Linux (and we see attempts of it),
but seems linux community do not want to learn good sides of Windows. And
such blindness cannot remain unpunished.
Andrew V. Fionik, Papillon Systems, Unix Programmers Group
For reply use "ender" instead of "fionika" in e-mail.