Windows Vista or Ubuntu Linux?

[CyberNerd]

Familiarity is the big issue to me. I've played a lot with different Linux distros but still, after all this time, It still gives me a headache trying to acomplish something I know how to do easily in Windows.

 

This was one of the reasons I voted Ubuntu, I find navigating a simple documented text file far easier than some of the undocumented windows registry settings !

[mac_shinobi]

Any chance I can vote mac os x cos its well in between and I prefer it

[kingswood]

If I have to vote either/or with no option for OS X then I would have to vote Ubuntu. Vista is OK. Just OK. It isn't anything special, and not for the price they want to charge for it in any case.

 

Ubuntu is great- it's a solid OS that lets me do most things I want. And yet, even though I chose Ubuntu I agree with another post that said Windows makes things so much easier because they are familiar. And this is the problem I have with Linux- there are *so many* ways of doing things (and of doing them wrong) that it puts people off.

 

More power to Ubuntu then!

[openhgs]

We have 2 AMD64 servers here running Ubuntu Server (AMD64). Both are LAMP servers. One runs http://vle.carrhill.lancs.sch.uk and it's uptime is currently 125 days.

 

 

Cool, I have 13 Windows 2003 servers running all kinds of things, current uptime for all 250+ days .

 

372 days today for our 10 Linux servers (LTSP).

 

Has to be Linux for numerous reasons :

* no viruses, spyware, etc (= lower TCO)

* freewill and determinism

* stability - I can't remember the last time one of our Linux boxes crashed

* I'm in total control

* runs out of the box and does something useful!

* bloody easy to configure (what is this "registry" crap?)

* don't have to reboot just because I add or remove software

* does as it's told (an M$ laptop refused to load SP2 the other day, due to it running on battery power - what crap is that?),

* I can run Linux on anything from my 386 laptop to Blue Gene/L - if I could afford to own it :-)

* very easy to troubleshoot - nothing is hidden

* not tied into the gui - who needs a gui anyway?

* very closely related to Unix, which has been around forever - stuff I learned 15 years ago on Unix is still useful on Linux; most of the things that I learned about Windows 3.11 are completely inapplicable to XP/W2K etc.

[Norphy]

Has to be Linux for numerous reasons :

* no viruses, spyware, etc (= lower TCO)

A decent virus scanner (which should be run on any computer irrespective of the OS) will help you out there. And tbh, spyware is a PEBKAC thing. If you're careful and pay attention to what you download you won't get infected. Make sure that your users run as suitably restricted users and make sure they don't have full access to the hard drive and OS and you will notice that your spyware problems mysteriously disappear.

 

* freewill and determinism

I choose to run Windows. Does that mean I have no free will? I chose to run the OS which will run my software and get the job done. It's not free and I can't change the source but meh, who cares?

 

* stability - I can't remember the last time one of our Linux boxes crashed

I can't remember the last time one of my Windows servers crashed either. Generally speaking, I find that XP Pro crashes are due to either dodgy hardware or to crap software.

 

* runs out of the box and does something useful!

 

A selection of useful out of the box Windows Server features:

 

DNS

DHCP

Directory service

Web Server

SMTP/POP3 Server

File/Print Server

Software router

Terminal Server

Certificate Server

 

A selection of useful, out of the box Windows XP features:

 

Internet browser

Email client

Extremely Basic word processor. Admittedly, this it is no OpenOffice but it is enough to type a letter to the editor on

Media player

IM client

 

Are these things that Linux doesn't have? Of course not. Are they useful? I'd say so.

 

* bloody easy to configure (what is this "registry" crap?)

Why, the registry is a central repository made available for programs to store all of their settings in. The alternative is a smorgasboard of ini files dotted all over your computer for you to sit there struggling to find the one that tweaks feature "X". Instead, you spend hours searching through the registry to tweak that feature instead. Neither solution is any better than the other imo.

 

* don't have to reboot just because I add or remove software

Granted, this is annoying. Generally speaking though, restarts are only necessary for OS updates and graphics card drivers. I find that most programs will work without a restart even if they request one. That said, MS are cutting down the amount of restarts required in Vista and LH Server

 

* does as it's told (an M$ laptop refused to load SP2 the other day, due to it running on battery power - what crap is that?),

Sounds sensible to me, the last thing you want to happen is for the battery to run out half way through the update.

 

* I can run Linux on anything from my 386 laptop to Blue Gene/L - if I could afford to own it :-)

I can run Windows on a 386 laptop too. It would be an old version of Windows admittedly but then you try to run the latest all singing, all dancing version of Linux on a 386. Good luck with that.

 

Admittedly, there aren't any versions of Windows available for big mainframe or massive clusters of computers but that said, it is probably safe to assume that a significant amount of them run a commercial variant of Unix like AIX or something else like VMS. Support is everything when you're running a system that size, you're unlikley to get particually helpful responses from the local Linux newsgroup if you have an issue with a $50million supercomputer

 

* very easy to troubleshoot - nothing is hidden

Things are only hidden if you don't know where to look for them

 

* not tied into the gui - who needs a gui anyway?

No-one of course. I like the old DOS versions of Wordperfect and Lotus 123. I like browsing the internet with the Lynx browser and really really hate working on graphics files. GUIs are useless

 

* very closely related to Unix, which has been around forever - stuff I learned 15 years ago on Unix is still useful on Linux; most of the things that I learned about Windows 3.11 are completely inapplicable to XP/W2K etc.

True in terms of the GUI but the command line commands aren't that different. The batch file scripting I learnt on MS-DOS 6 is still quite useful.

 

I don't deny that there are some very compelling reasons to run Linux over Windows. However, I don't think that you have listed any there.

 

 

Coming vaguely back on topic, I have to question the sanity of anyone who wants to buy Vista Ultimate Edition for the home. I'd also have to commit anyone who buys it in a retail package to the loony bin Aside from possibly Remote Desktop support and dual socket support, I'd have thought that Home Premium would be enough for almost anyone.

[kingswood]

Good points Norphy, I have to admit.

 

Hey- if life is a lemon, suck it and see before asking for a refund ;-)

[GrumbleDook]

Like Gecko and Kingswood I am a Mac OSX person ... but I will use whatever is appropriate for the job. Having been playing with Vista on my Mac for a week or so now I don't have any reason to use it instead of XP Pro ... at the moment.

 

I know there will be software out there that will be improved by running on Vista ... and I know that I am likey to find that handy. In the meantime I don't *need* Vista ... but if I was given it I would not turn it down.

 

Ubuntu? Had a play ... then again, I played with SuSE and Red Hat when they were touted as 'the next big thing' ... and I still prefer the comfort of FreeBSD and Solaris 2.6 ... I can't find anything major that I can't get elsewhere ...

 

Whenever something new arrive in the computing world people always used to ask 'where is the killer app?' For most the beginning was the idea of spreadsheets ... then there was the browser and email client ... and now it is iTunes / iPods ...

 

Can anyone point me to the killer app for Vista or Ubuntu?

[mrforgetful]

Can anyone point me to the killer app for Vista or Ubuntu?

 

I can only point to Vista's - Updated Solitaire!

[Jake]

Hehe..Vista Chess is driving me nuts, I managed to beat it on level 1-5, but level 6 has beaten me 67 times now

[Pottsey]

“I vote Vista, because Linux is crap, seeing as Windows holds over 80% market share they can't all be wrong.”

When ever I see logic like that I cannot but help think of TV soaps like East enders and Neighbours. Millions watch those so by the same logic you would think they cannot all be wrong and it’s worth watching.

 

Saying that I Vote for Vista. Ubuntu Linux does have its place though. We use both Win 2003 server and Ubuntu Linux.

[Geoff]

Can anyone point me to the killer app for Vista or Ubuntu

 

For Ubuntu, I'd have to say the 'killer' app seems to be when it's configured as a LAMP server. That seems to be the reason most people are installing Linux boxen.

 

As for Vista, there doesn't seem to be anything on the horizon that requires it at the moment. Microsoft might force an upgrade at some point though by requiring Vista in newer releases of it's software. eg, I think that Halo 3 will require Vista. The simple fact it'll be bundled with new PCs will ensure there's a decent market share for Vista after 6/12 months.

[mrforgetful]

I think one of the big features in XP is the built in parental controls.

 

I don't know if anyones looked at them, but you can really stop your young kids doing what you don't want them to. Stopping IMing or logging chats, stopping games over whatever ELSPA/BBFC ratings from running etc.

 

I also like the breadcrumb bar.

[unixman]

Has to be Linux for numerous reasons :

* no viruses, spyware, etc (= lower TCO)

A decent virus scanner (which should be run on any computer irrespective of the OS) will help you out there. And tbh, spyware is a PEBKAC thing. If you're careful and pay attention to what you download you won't get infected. Make sure that your users run as suitably restricted users and make sure they don't have full access to the hard drive and OS and you will notice that your spyware problems mysteriously disappear.

 

But why should we need virus scanners at all? Remember viruses exist to exploit holes in the O/S. Without holes there would be no viruses. The programmers at Microsoft work hard to patch these holes but have yet to suceed. Recent press shows that they have given up - aren't Microsoft moving into the anti-virus market? If they are, the cynic in me spots a nice marketting oportunity. Remember companies like Microsoft exist not for the benefit of users but to benefit the shareholders. The community lead initiative of Linux is there for us users.

 

Of the two choices given I'd choose Ubuntu, however I run Fedora Core at home. FC6 is very pretty with all the bells and whistles on. Being a performance freak, I've switched them off. For a laptop environment it's hard to go past the MacBook - M$ like GUI with BSD Unix underneath, surely the best of both worlds. Heck, you can even get MSOffice for it!

[webman]

I also like the breadcrumb bar.

 

Various Linux file managers have had that luxury for years.

[Geoff]

But why should we need virus scanners at all?

 

Because although there are very few Linux viruses there are plenty for Windows. It's perfectly possible for a Linux machine to unwittingly pass on infected data to a Windows machine. In a school situation this is usually via Samba shares or Email. So while it's true you do not need a virus scanner to protect yourself, you do need one to protect those around you who are not fortunate enough to be using a system resistant to viruses like Linux or MacOS X.

[mrforgetful]

unixman - Virus's don't just attack an OS, they can attack any file but most writers choose to hit Windows that's all.

 

It's like when everyone touted Firefox as being much more secure than IE but then when virus writers actually started attacking Firefox it was too found to have stupid flaws.

[NetDiag]

But why should we need virus scanners at all? Remember viruses exist to exploit holes in the O/S. Without holes there would be no viruses. The programmers at Microsoft work hard to patch these holes but have yet to suceed. Recent press shows that they have given up - aren't Microsoft moving into the anti-virus market? If they are, the cynic in me spots a nice marketting oportunity. Remember companies like Microsoft exist not for the benefit of users but to benefit the shareholders. The community lead initiative of Linux is there for us users.

 

People will still choose to install antivirus, antispyware software even if all the security holes in operating systems were finally plugged (although unlikely as new patches and the closing of security holes can often open newer ones - and the cycle goes on) I'm not just talking about Windows OS'es here, as Linux can be just as prone to security problems.

 

I think it's cyber-terrorism man! The hackers, virus and spyware culprits have instilled fear and terror in our hearts!

[Geoff]

Virus's don't just attack an OS, they can attack any file but most writers choose to hit Windows that's all.

 

Yes, that's correct. However, if there was ever a prevelant virus for Linux the only thing it would be able to attack are files in your /home (which presumably you've backed up). By default the Linux security model is to give you minimal user priverledges.

 

On a standard XP install the default is reversed. You are automatically setup with full admin access and therefore any virus has free run of the system as well as your user data. Obviously in a school domain enviroment this situation isn't as true though.

 

 

It's like when everyone touted Firefox as being much more secure than IE but then when virus writers actually started attacking Firefox it was too found to have stupid flaws.

 

This is a little different. Yes there are security flaws in Firefox. Just like any software. However the notable difference between IE6 (IIE7 works a little differently) and Firefox is that IE6 has components that work under SYSTEM priverleges. With Firefox, everything has the same level access as your user account.

 

So basically when something blows a hole in IE6, if done correctly, it can 'priverlege escalate' to SYSTEM level priverleges. Thereby infecting the whole system. Under firefox this technique doesn't work most of the time. As firefox doesn't have any more priverleges than the user who ran it.

 

Microsoft has taken some measures with IE7 to fix this design flaw. Time will tell if they did a good job. Also you can avoid a lot of these priverlege escilation vunerabilities by just disabling ActiveX.

[CyberNerd]

It's like when everyone touted Firefox as being much more secure than IE but then when virus writers actually started attacking Firefox it was too found to have stupid flaws.

 

If your referring to the javascript 'flaw' it was a hoax

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2023762,00.asp

 

AFIK the worst vulnerability on firefox causes a browser crash

 

as for killer apps - I stilll say its the collection of applications and their integration into the OS that is the killer app.

Sure Windows can do all this - but it requires licensing,cals, and different versions and lots of money - we get it easy with all this cost price educational, but if I decide I want to test serverX at home my choice is pay for windows server, break teh law, or use ubuntu. Vista cannot be an exchange server but my desktop can do all these things so why would I change?

[budgester]

The thing I love about linux.........

 

A server with this setup...

 

No Monitor,

No Keyboard,

No mouse,

 

running sshd with screen.

 

And lets face it cmd.exe is no substitute for bash.

[djm968]

I think the point everyone is missing here is about using the right tool for the right job.

 

For example, if I needed a web server, I would build one using Linux but if I was doing an in-place upgrace of a windows 2000 domain controller I would use windows 2003.

 

The argument of which one is better should be about which is the more appropriate solution to meet the specific requirements.

 

For desktop PC’s Linux is always going to struggle to attract new users in an M$ dominated market if cost alone was the issue, M$ would by now have lost their grasp as the dominant desktop OS and this is clearly not the case.

 

M$ also still has huge piracy issue, 12.4% of PC’s running Windows XP are pirate copies in the UK.

 

So when some says “I use Linux because it’s free” ask yourself how many Windows XP users are actually doing the same only illegally!

[webman]

And lets face it cmd.exe is no substitute for bash.

 

Quite right. You can't even use the keyboard to paste from the clipboard.

[bossman]

Vistuntu!!! best of both worlds (wish) never happen but would ere on the Ubuntu for cost factor and reliability, Vista for compatibility with third party software. Each has it's good side as equally as bad sides (doubt if Webman will agree) but he knows my thinking on the matter.

[budgester]

M$ also still has huge piracy issue, 12.4% of PC’s running Windows XP are pirate copies in the UK.

 

So when some says “I use Linux because it’s free” ask yourself how many Windows XP users are actually doing the same only illegally!

 

This is surely a short coming of the english language free as in cost, or free as in freedom. Libre or Gratis.

 

Granted there are not many people who want to start hacking on code, but at least you have the option if you want to or you can pay someone to add a feature or fix a bug if your OS is free.

 

I work with both Windows and Linux (have worked with a multitude of other OS's as well in my career) and the main bulk of knowledge that is still relevant is the *nix stuff.

[Geoff]

Vistuntu!!! best of both worlds (wish) never happen but would ere on the Ubuntu for cost factor and reliability, Vista for compatibility with third party software. Each has it's good side as equally as bad sides (doubt if Webman will agree) but he knows my thinking on the matter.

 

Might eventually see light of day due to this Microsoft/Novell SELS deal.

 

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/291494_msftnovell08.html

 

Microsoft will spend $34 million on a sales force and a total of $60 million on marketing for the combined Windows and Linux offering.

 

I also find it amusing a large chunk of change from Windows licenses are going into Novells pockets and thus back into Linux development.

 

Microsoft Corp. will pay out a grand total of $442 million under patent and business deals that it announced last week with Linux vendor Novell Inc.