Linux vs. Windows: The Rematch

PC World ^ | 1 October, 2002 | Scott Spanbauer

[ShadowAce]

Ping

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

While it is true that many apps on Linux are not up to their Windows equivalents (if they even exist), the opposite is true. How often have I been frustrated at the lack of ability to do something on Windows that I can do easily on Linux.

[jimkress]

Linux, in one form or another, will run on everything from a 486 doorstop with 8MB of RAM

Not true. I'm sitting here looking at a 4 years old, PII 64MB RAM IDE 40MB disk drive on which any version of windows has been installed and runs flawlessly. However, even the tech support people at RedHat could not get Linux 7.2 running on this system. I was forced to purchase another computer for my Linux work, and even on that computer Linux would not recognize the on-board LAN.

Linux is a good geek OS but I would never try to use it as the desktop OS in a business environment. The vast majority of clerks, secretaries, and others who view their computer as ancillary to their work experience would never be able to cope with Linux.

I'm sure this dose of reality will evoke flaming responses and personal attacks from the Gates haters and Linux fanatics out there. However, their emotional response to practical experience is of no consequence to people who actually have to earn a living in this field.

[Voltage]

I have tested latest releases of Mandrake, Red Hat and Debian on two new machines, Intel 815 and 845 series motherboards. None of these Linux releases can do a power down. When attempting a power down they go through all the steps, then halt without completing the power down. Win9X and XP power down just fine. When I raised this on each of the appropriate companies beta developement forums I pretty much got the same answer..OH, your systems are new and use ACPI power management but the new Linux releases work correctly with the older APM power management. You have to recompile the kernal to bring in support for new systems, or you can power down using the power switch!

So much for being new and modern!

[js1138]

How often have I been frustrated at the lack of ability to do something on Windows that I can do easily on Linux.

True of any two operating systems, when switching from the one you're most familiar with. The strengths and weaknesses of any OS will lead you to think in certain directions. I programmed for 8 years on AT&T UNIX and XENIX. It took more than a decade to move to the Dark Side, but I did so to make a living.

[jejones]

The original post was rather hyperbolic--though the main problem there is with devices whose creators neither provide Linux device drivers nor provide the information necessary to write a Linux device driver. (I make a point of telling hardware manufacturers why they're losing my business when I run into that problem.)

As for clerks, secretaries, et al.--they won't be installing any OS, and Linux can be trivially made to let them log in and go directly to whatever application they know how to use as part of their job.

Sorry, no flames or personal attacks here. :)

[stainlessbanner]

The article didn't have a paragraph entitled "Things we Love about Windows"...doh!

[rdb3]

The Penguin Ping.

Wanna be Penguified? Just holla!

Got root?

[Snerfling]

The real competitive victim of Linux is not MS, but Sun. I can't see why an 'average' user would switch their desktop over to Linux from Windows at this point, but for someone experienced with Solaris, Unix, et al, Linux is a snap.

Loaded onto a souped up Pentium, techies can build very high performance servers for a pittance. SUNW has no chance.

[The Duke]

I think what I like most about Linux is that it puts some of the fun back into technology that, under Microsoft, had become one big yawn. When I log into UNIX it feels a little like the old days of "Compute" and "Creative Computing" magazines - however still only a fait echo of those giddy early years.

[dwollmann]

Linux is a good geek OS but I would never try to use it as the desktop OS in a business environment. The vast majority of clerks, secretaries, and others who view their computer as ancillary to their work experience would never be able to cope with Linux.

You cite problems with installation and configuration then assert that regular users would not be able to cope with Linux. How many of these regular users could install Windows on their own? How many have to?

The fact is that in an enterprise environment, installation, configuration and maintenance are all taken care of by (hopefully) professional administrators. All the end user sees is pretty windows with menus and buttons, and this is as it should be.

As for the problems you experienced with your installs, you should have contacted the FR geek cadre first, we're good and we don't charge anything. In the future, if you have questions on Linux give your pals here a chance to help out.

However, their emotional response to practical experience is of no consequence to people who actually have to earn a living in this field.

Let's compare experience: I have almost seven years of experience with Linux. How much do you have? I have three machines running Debian, one running an ancient Red Hat, and two machines running OpenBSD. Installing Linux is a snap, because I have enough experience to know where to look when there's a problem and how to work around most problems in the default install program. Windows admins learn the same skills for the same reasons--things don't always work perfectly and (an important distinction) don't always work the way you expect them to. The latter is especially true if one's expectations are formed after years of experience with a totally different operating system.

Would it be fair of me to try to install Windows XP Pro, fail, then trash it because of that limited experience? I think not. The fact is, Red Hat has been (until the most recent release) a server-oriented distribution, not well-known for being friendly to new users. I'm certain that you would have had much better success installing Mandrake. The last time I installed Mandrake (8.1, if I remember correctly) it detected all my hardware (including sound card) and installed and configured the kernel modules so that there was no further configuration required.

[general_re]

I'm sitting here looking at a 4 years old, PII 64MB RAM IDE 40MB disk drive on which any version of windows has been installed and runs flawlessly.

40 MB disk???? No offense, my friend, but I think you might want to check that again - while I believe that you could probably shoehorn an absolute bare-bones install of Windows 95 onto a 40 MB disk, I have serious doubts that any later version of Windows would fit at all...

[BlueLancer]

"Oh, man, I only ride in 'em ... I don't know what makes 'em work."

Oddball (Kelly's Heroes)

[general_re]

Shhhhh - this has all the makings of a good old-fashioned flamewar ;)

[ShadowAce]

Linux, in one form or another, will run on everything from a 486 doorstop with 8MB of RAM

However, even the tech support people at RedHat could not get Linux 7.2 running on this system.

You mentioned one flavor of Linux that won't run on that system, while the article says "in one form or another." You cannot draw conclusions about the veracity of the statement based on one experience. It does NOT say "every form of Linux can run on any hardware."

[dwollmann]

$rdb3->holla('sign me up');

[B Knotts]

No one's flaming you; they're just trying to help you out.

An aside...clerks and secretaries shouldn't be configuring or installing operating systems, as a general rule. Depending on what the business needs are, Linux can serve as a reasonable desktop OS in some cases. That's why Sun is going to sell Linux desktops, I would presume.

[ShadowAce]

Every OS sucks

[Nuke'm Glowing]

Which begs the age old question, why hasn't SUNW bought Red Hat yet???? It's a marriage that should be made in heaven....