[martinex]

Linux (distributions Ubuntu, openSUSE, Debian and many more), Windows (editions 95, 98, 2000, XP and Vista) or MAC OSX?
Who's the better OS and Why?

In my opinion the best of the OS is Linux Ubuntu, because There's no viruses, stability and free.
Windows has many viruses and very much holes for hackers, and not free.

I have Linux Ubuntu 7.04 LTS on my old PC (CPU:1.5Ghz with 768MB RAM) and working good.
And on my laptop working under OpenSUSE 10.3 (because doesn't support my laptop).
What do you think about that?

[Kuta]

I started of learning about computing with a Mac which was back in the early 90's in Apple's hayday. Back then it was by far the best OS but since then Windows has made a hell of a lot of ground and is now my personal choice for an OS. I realise there are many problems such as viruses and security holes but I just know it a lot better than anything else and there is usually some decent protection software available to take care of those problems.

I am currently learning about Solaris and I can't understand why some people like it so much. I think it is just ridiculus having a nice graphical interface in the background and then still having to do all your management tasks from a command line. Man, it is just driving me crazy!

[dibz]

martinex said:

In my opinion the best of the OS is Linux Ubuntu, because There's no viruses, stability and free.
Windows has many viruses and very much holes for hackers, and not free.

I have Linux Ubuntu 7.04 LTS on my old PC (CPU:1.5Ghz with 768MB RAM) and working good.
And on my laptop working under OpenSUSE 10.3 (because doesn't support my laptop).
What do you think about that?

What you said isn't entirely true, at least to a point that it should be clarified. Ubuntu (Linux) certainly does have viruses, malware, rootkits, etc -- they're simply not as prevalent as a massive target like Windows, the same goes for OSX. Also, many flavors of Linux, including Ubuntu, are not entirely free if you consider the average consumer -- support does cost money.

That being said, I use all three on a daily basis on my work desktops with Synergy to share my keyboard and mouse between them.

Honestly, it really depends on personal preference. Anyone could argue the "best" operating system based on practically irrelevant facts specific to each OS.

"OSX is best because it's prettiest!"

"Linux is best because of the labor of love to get beryl && compiz running, so it's even prettier then OSX!"

"Windows is best because it has more games!"

"Well I have WINE!!!"

"But there is no complicated install system on my OS!"

"But there is no UNINSTALL system on your OS either!"

(Now it's getting intentially vague in my mock argument above, because thats the entire point...)

Personally, as far as my daily life goes, the only OS I could do without is probably OSX -- it's nice, but doesn't offer anything I absolutely need when you take the GUI away.

(I did not vote in the poll as there isn't an appropriate option for my stance)

[ExCyber]

Some people are just used to the command line, but I think the biggest technical advantage is that it's much easier to automate complex management tasks by scripting command line tools than it is to automate complex tasks in a GUI. In a "serious" network deployment that can be a huge advantage.

[dibz]

ExCyber said:

Some people are just used to the command line, but I think the biggest technical advantage is that it's much easier to automate complex management tasks by scripting command line tools than it is to automate complex tasks in a GUI. In a "serious" network deployment that can be a huge advantage.

Agreed entirely, if we were talking about servers, I'd say linux hands down and would start discussing distros -- CentOS is generally what I'd roll with.

However, I took the discussion as targeting the average Desktop user, which is the context I went with in my last reply.

[mtxblau]

I'd probably say OS X even though I don't own one; pretty machines, good hardware and great software. Overpriced? Absolutely. But on the flip side, there isn't ad supported crapware pre-bundled when you buy.

I like Ubuntu, I've been using it since 5.04; I'm more of a KDE person and outside of OpenSuse and Mandriva that has embraced KDE. I'm sick to death of RPM. Hopefully KDE4 will be better embraced by the Ubuntu community (though I doubt it).

[martinex]

I use Ubuntu 8.04 on a PC and OpenSuse 10.3 on a laptop and I am satisfied with the stability and the absence of viruses.

[ZikZak]

Zenwalk (a Slackware's favour) cause I had so many issues with packages back in the past.
Using GNU/Linux since I have a computer, since 7 years now. GNU/Linux was appearing on the mass market, enclosed with magazines and Windows 98 was too expensive for my computer I built myself (and my wallet of course).

Now, I'm used to the command line and simple interface (Fluxbox :inlove:).

I fully agree that a computer si something personnal and that everyone will not have the same needs
GNU/Linux is fitting my needs perfectly.

[Runik]

At work, we are in the process of merging a lot of databases together, the goal being to only have one "superdatabase" at one place (accessed by client-server), instead of multiple smaller databases widespread all around the country.
We asked the guys providing us the software architecture some advices about the hardware / OS to use, and they strongly recommanded us to use Windows instead of Linux, as the latter one wasn't performant enough with that amount of data ...

I personnaly use Windows at home, I used Linux from time to time in the past, but my principal need is flexibility, and I think that Windows is much better in that matter :)

[ExCyber]

Runik said:

We asked the guys providing us the software architecture some advices about the hardware / OS to use, and they strongly recommanded us to use Windows instead of Linux, as the latter one wasn't performant enough with that amount of data ...

That might be good advice for your situation, but I don't think it holds in general. Linux generally has pretty good performance characteristics if configured appropriately for the task and using good/supported hardware. I don't think Google is using it just to be trendy. ;)

Runik said:

I personnaly use Windows at home, I used Linux from time to time in the past, but my principal need is flexibility, and I think that Windows is much better in that matter :)

Do you mean flexibility in terms of being able to run applications? Windows definitely wins in that regard. Linux itself, though, is flexible to a fault (some people actually prefer the BSDs largely for being more well-defined as a system).

This post has been edited by ExCyber: 12 September 2008 - 09:25 AM

[Runik]

ExCyber said:

That might be good advice for your situation, but I don't think it holds in general. Linux generally has pretty good performance characteristics if configured appropriately for the task and using good/supported hardware. I don't think Google is using it just to be trendy. ;)

I'm not an expert in that matter, that's why we asked to competent people :p
I'm not saying that Linux isn't good to handle huge amount of data, but in our situation (client/server), and using our architecture, the choice wasn't pertinent :p

ExCyber said:

Do you mean flexibility in terms of being able to run applications? Windows definitely wins in that regard. Linux itself, though, is flexible to a fault (some people actually prefer the BSDs largely for being more well-defined as a system).

That's exactly that.
For example I wanted to build a secure server at home able to handle everything internet related. My first choice was to install Smoothwall, but I had to find another solution as it wasn't possible to add stuff like FTP server, etc ...
So I ended up by installing Windows 2000, with Looknstop, Squid and Filezilla Server. That's not as secure as Smoothwall, but it's enough for my use, and I can really do whatever I want :)

[Kuta]

The thing that some bussinesses may not take into account when deciding on which OS to use is the cost of maintanance. A system like Linux would become very maintanace heavy due to the fact it requires a specific set of skills to administer.

Finding people to hire for a linux administration postion would be far more difficult than Windows seeing as far more people are familiar with Windows. Pretty much anyone who has any experience using a computer will have experience with using Windows and carrying out administration tasks in Windows is a piece of cake.

[dibz]

Kuta said:

The thing that some bussinesses may not take into account when deciding on which OS to use is the cost of maintanance. A system like Linux would become very maintanace heavy due to the fact it requires a specific set of skills to administer.

Finding people to hire for a linux administration postion would be far more difficult than Windows seeing as far more people are familiar with Windows. Pretty much anyone who has any experience using a computer will have experience with using Windows and carrying out administration tasks in Windows is a piece of cake.

While generally speaking what you say is true, it's not entirely. I'd have to wager a guess that under the above thought process, the office in question is very likely office-type usage only -- very basic. So, a solid beginning setup that ironically takes future maintenance in to consideration is key like you said -- simply select a solid distro with basic yum/whatever package manager support, install only via the package manager, set it up to update and you're likely pretty solid for years.

Do updates and new versions matter? Of course, however, it's important to remember about back-porting and certain distributions. Sure some versions of certain programs have known security issues, and newer versions may fix them -- and also break things if things change too drastically. Certain versions of Linux take this in to consideration, and release updates via backports -- updates that fix bugs/security problems only, but don't introduce new features of a program. Why does this matter? Because a package manager can and will update a program automatically, without breaking anything.

As long as no one in the office tries to recompile the kernel, and the _initial_ setup was intelligent, they'd be fine more or less, possibly even better in terms of future maintenance, then a windows box.

However on the other side of the fence, if it was a Windows box they'd likely not have to hire anyone to do the initial setup -- or hire any local teenager at the most. If it was a Linux box, they'd best hire someone specifically qualified to do the initial setup -- where experience and forward-thinking is key.

Really, it all comes down to what type of work the business needs to do with their computers. A solid linux setup can be very good at keeping itself up to date, although nothing is ever fool proof. And not to be cynical, often windows maintenance is more of a clean-up act with whatever the user broke or allowed into their system. This is a never ending debate though, the choice of maintenance itself is more or less moot as long as their is a human factor -- people can break anything.

[Falstaff48]

I have been using the Mac OS since OS6 the late 1980's. Used windows for a few years in the 90's and my wifes computer still runs XP. I gave up on Windows completely in 2001 and have be an OS X user since then. I have tried various Linux distros and have been really impressed with them as a whole. But iI do plan to stick with OS X for now.

[mtxblau]

I keep trying OS X, but I can't wrap my head around the UI.

I've been using Windows, but mostly for the sheer convenience of it. I was using Linux, but not since Suse 9.3 have I used it regularly. I like Ubuntu in theory, but in practice it seems their aim is cutting edge instead of stability, even in the LTS releases. Everyone and their mother keeps suggesting Arch, which I have yet to try.

KDE 4.2 looks and feels sensational. I've used it, and I love it. I can say that it's the first thing in a really long while that has me excited about computers as a hobby. A couple more releases and it'll be all around amazing.

[Maturion]

Being a Linux fan, I'd vote for Linux. :biggrin:

[Runik]

I bought a laptop at the end of last year, and I installed a dual boot Ubuntu / XP instead of Vista, and I'm quite happy with both :)

[bigcheese]

I like teh Linux :biggrin:

[Chilly Willy]

Linux beats Windows in every category but one: apps. That is a big category, though. So I recommend people run the OS that they need to run the apps they need. If your app is only available for Windows, guess what? However, many people don't NEED to run Windows anymore. The stuff they do has long since been better done on linux. An example is someone addicted to the net and spends several hours a day online - they only need a good browser and a secure OS. Linux is ideal for this person. The other way around - maybe your addiction is the latest video game using DirectX-10. They're pretty much stuck with Windows.

As to the specific distro, I like Xubuntu. Ubuntu is a fine distro with a lot of noob-friendly features. I'm not a noob at linux, but I have this philosophy: I'm a developer - I want the OS to take care of itself so I can just develop. I don't need to be compiling my own kernel when I could be compiling my work code. Ubuntu is a great distro for people with that philosophy. Second, I use Xubuntu because I rather like XFCE at the moment. It's pretty light and responsive, and rather similar to Gnome without all the Gnome issues. Finally, I go with Xubuntu because it's on EVERYTHING - and I do mean EVERYTHING! I've got Xubuntu 9.04 on my main Athlon 64 X2, my CoreDuo SBC, my G3 iMac, my EPIA notebook, my PS3, the old living room ftp server... you get the idea. One distro is literally all I need, and every system will be just like all the others.

I run linux probably 99.99% of the time. The rest of the time is split between Windows and OSX. That's me - I'm not you and your needs will not be the same. So I recommend people TRY linux, but whatever they go with in the end is fine with me. It's no skin off my nose.

[Scared0o0Rabbit]

I've been running ubuntu for a short while now and really enjoying it. For all my day to day stuff I've reached the point where I'd much rather be in gnome than xp. That said, I have an application that I HAVE to use for work that I haven't managed to get working in wine yet. I've got some things to try yet before I totally give up on getting it to work, but out of the box it's not even close to working heh. (Don't get me started on running xp in virtualbox or something similar as this is a slow laptop, it'd be too painful).

There are a few apps that I haven't really found a replacement for in linux yet(TVersity and Cheat Engine, not to mention my work software), but as a whole I don't foresee myself ever giving up on linux now that I've become accustomed to it.