Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX
Dispersing the Linux Lies
gnomez:
quote: Linux falls down on compatibility with newer or rarer hardware. i think linux has much better 'plug and play' (if you can call it that!) than windows for the things it does support, but for the things linux doesn't support, watch out.
--- End quote ---
This is so true. Many recent Linux distributions such as Red Hat 7.2 and Mandrake 8.1 simply blow Win9x out of the water in terms of auto-detecting and configuring your hardware when you install the OS, and although it is a shame that many important perhipherals such as scanners, digital cameras, some printers, etc. are notautodetected or supported very well (or at all) by Linux, installing both of the Linux distributions mentioned was far easier than setting up Win 98 on the same computers. This is just a fact. In both Mandrake and Redhat you can set up your network and test your video card settings in 32-bit color before you have to reboot once, which is much better than having to install everything from driver-disks after several reboots and have a horrid 16 color 640x480 display until you intall your video card drivers. It is nice to have an installer that acknowledges that you might have more than one OS on your machine and kindly does not delete or make un-bootable your other OSes like a certain OS that will go unnamed. However, not everything with Linux is perfect in certain areas. Like I said earlier, scanner and camera support is wanting, especially for newer models. Furthermore, I have had some personal hurdles setting up hardware on various Linux systems around my house, the most severe case being on my main computer (an Alienware) where much tweaking was required to keep it from locking up. So yes, Linux can crash but ifit is set up right and doesn't have "issues" with your hardware then it is just as stable as Windows 2000, perhaps more. Maybe why for some people Windows behaves perfectly and for others it is a BSODing bitch is because unlike Linux you can't very well tweak it or recompile it for your hardware. Windows has been very nice on all of my computers, personally. (with the exception of the Windows 95 upgrade I bought a long time ago, which was buggier than a frat-house couch) If you want to avoid BSOD's on Windows then use a version that is based on the NT kernel (2000 or XP) With one exception, (Xp locked up on my brother once while he was playing dark age of camelot, but don't tell me you've never had Linux lockup in 3d-apps on an nvidia card..) I have never had either of these operating systems lock up on me. So some of these "Windows locks up on you every 5 minutes" claims are a little exaggerated. Even 95 didn't crash that much. Speaking of Windows XP, ignoring the fact that Microsoft made it, I found it to be a great operating system. I was curious about it so I used the CD from my brother's new computer to install it on mine. Installing it was a breeze, and it never asked me a single hardware question during the installation or anytime after, and configured all of it perfectly (amazing). Sure, OS X doesn't ask you hardware questions either, but most Macs have standardized hardware so it was more impressive when XP did it. The only negative thing about installing XP is when it gets to the "Product Activation" part (luckilly it never came up, thanks to my hack.) Heheh. Sorry, Bill, but do I look like I have that kind of money? You 'bout broke my allowance with Visual C++ alone! One thing Microsoft needs to learn is that kids are the future. Most kids aren't willing or able to pay for all that expensive crap, and if all the young programmers leave Microsoft for something free then they (Microsoft) are making a big mistake.
gnomez:
A few things, first, I still stand by my saying that Windows isn't bloated for desktop use. For me, anyway. Windows 95 can run decently on a 486, try running a Linux gui of comparable functionality on a 486 (I dare you to run KDE or Gnome on anything below a Pentium II!) Hard drive space really isn't a sign of how bloated something is, what is a sign is how responsive it is. Although, my default installation of Win 98 took up just a little over 300 megs, which ain't bloated in my opinion. And that came with an email program, browser, media player, file manager, a (measly) paint program, several text editors and a bunch of themes and wallpapers. You can't say that Linux with Xfree86, QT, and KDE would take any less than that. Both Linux and Windows take up a lot of hard drive space. So what. Hard drive space is cheap-o these days, and what is truly a lightweight OS that puts both to shame is QNX. The whole OS, including a gui and a small web browser are able to fit on a floppy disk. (don't ask me what use this is, but it is surely a world record) So neither comes close to that! And until konqueror/galeon/mozilla stops taking 5 seconds to start, and Open Office/Star Office stops taking literally 10 seconds or more to start, I will have to say window
voidmain:
Hey Gnome, you sound like a pretty bright kid.. Too bad you spent all your money on VC++. Is there any way we could twist your arm to do some Linux development in your spare time? You've pointed out some areas that need work and the rest of us would sure appreciate it if you could help make our favorite OS better. I'm getting too old and crusty, my brain doesn't function as well as it used to so you are right, I am dependent on you smart kids. I'll even buy the compiler for you.
gnomez:
I still have a lot, lot, lot to learn about programming, but I guarantee you that I will be contributing to Linux simply because it is a great environment to learn programming in. After all, there are a lot of things in Linux that I think "gee, it would be so much better if they made it like this." So instead of writing another post I'm going over and reading a few chapters of C++ in Plain English! ;)
dovyman:
You may have some decent arguments, but "the good name of microsoft" ?!?! what would that be? they make horrible software and OS's unless your a technology illiterate. (the idea of which they originally stole from other companies anyways) Linux is undesputably more stable, albeit slightly slower.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version