Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

mswin vs linux in academia

<< < (2/3) > >>

40hz:
If speed and ease are important, and you don't want much of a learning curve, then often Windows is better.
-Renegade (August 02, 2012, 11:23 AM)
--- End quote ---

But only if you ignore the fact that most people already have a significant amount of Windows learning under their belt whether they realize it or not.

One advantage Microsoft has being the desktop 'standard' is that millions get exposed to it early and often.

All operating systems and system tools need to be learned. You're not born knowing how to use a command line - or a GUI for that matter. You learn them. But when you're exposed to something as often as you are a Windows desktop and mouse, you forget just how much you've actually have learned over the years in order to use it effectively.

Since most people's Nix exposure often comes well after they've become proficient in Windows, they're more consciously aware they're learning something new. And occasionally they also find themselves needing to "unlearn" Windows conventions which they had previously assumed were the only "correct" way to do things on a computer. Small wonder Nix can seem "hard" to someone who's conceptual framework and workflow has been strongly shaped and influenced by Microsoft's vision of how to do things.

Linux is no harder to use (on the desktop level) than Windows. And beneath the hood, it's not really any harder to master either. (If you don't believe it, try tackling the Windows Registry, Group Policies and Objects, or Active Directory components before you say Linux is difficult to understand or work with. Especially when something goes wrong. Or when you start getting into serious shell scripting. ) Linux doesn't, however, hide its underpinnings and clockwork like Windows does. You can get into much deeper levels in Linux than Windows will allow. But that doesn't mean it's more complex. It just means the complexities are more accessible. Underneath the pretty GUI, Windows is every bit as complex - or possibly even more complex - than Linux is. But that's only to  be expected. Operating systems are complex beasts. No getting around that. No matter who wrote it.

How deep into it you need to go, and how much complexity you need to deal with, will be determined by your individual interest and needs.

It's no different than anything else that's "technical" when you think about it. :)

Renegade:
If speed and ease are important, and you don't want much of a learning curve, then often Windows is better.
-Renegade (August 02, 2012, 11:23 AM)
--- End quote ---

But only if you ignore the fact that most people already have a significant amount of Windows learning under their belt whether they realize it or not.

One advantage Microsoft has being the desktop 'standard' is that millions get exposed to it early and often.

All operating systems and system tools need to be learned. You're not born knowing how to use a command line - or a GUI for that matter. You learn them. But when you're exposed to something as often as you are a Windows desktop and mouse, you forget just how much you've actually have learned over the years in order to use it effectively.

Since most people's Nix exposure often comes well after they've become proficient in Windows, they're more consciously aware they're learning something new. And occasionally they also find themselves needing to "unlearn" Windows conventions which they had previously assumed were the only "correct" way to do things on a computer. Small wonder Nix can seem "hard" to someone who's conceptual framework and workflow has been strongly shaped and influenced by Microsoft's vision of how to do things.

Linux is no harder to use (on the desktop level) than Windows. And beneath the hood, it's not really any harder to master either. (If you don't believe it, try tackling the Windows Registry, Group Policies and Objects, or Active Directory components before you say Linux is difficult to understand or work with. Especially when something goes wrong. Or when you start getting into serious shell scripting. ) Linux doesn't, however, hide its underpinnings and clockwork like Windows does. You can get into much deeper levels in Linux than Windows will allow. But that doesn't mean it's more complex. It just means the complexities are more accessible. Underneath the pretty GUI, Windows is every bit as complex - or possibly even more complex - than Linux is. But that's only to  be expected. Operating systems are complex beasts. No getting around that. No matter who wrote it.

How deep into it you need to go, and how much complexity you need to deal with, will be determined by your individual interest and needs.

It's no different than anything else that's "technical" when you think about it. :)
-40hz (August 02, 2012, 12:42 PM)
--- End quote ---

Mostly yes. A little bit of no. :)

The No Part:

Windows is really GUI-centric. Everything is in a GUI. And GUIs are simply much easier to learn than the command line because everything is laid out in front of you to see in 1 glance. I think that accessibility is the thing to look at. i.e. Is it possible to use the functionality easily? If not, well, then it might as well not exist unless you're willing to put in a massive amount of effort.

Now, if you really, really want to see just how unholy Linux is... Look into distribution packages... On more than a superficial level. It's ungodly. It's an abomination against humanity. Really. I think I'm actually understating it... It's worse than the 9th level of Hell. Even Apple hasn't screwed things up that badly. Windows on the other hand is pure simplicity. However, that's just one small thing -- how to distribute software sanely. It isn't a reflection on the rest of the OS.

The Yes Part:

Yeah. Pretty much. (Unless it's Ubuntu's new way to obfuscate everything. What do they call it? Oh, yeah... "Unity". :P ;D )

-- I LOVE the Enlightenment desktop... oh god... It's just divine! Best one I've ever seen.

However, the real question is about a given purpose. My example of the mutilation of software distribution on Linux is hardly relevant to computational chemistry. The important thing there is what software packages are available to get the job done.

I don't think the OS really is all that important for any given specific task. The software used to complete the task is the real question.

mahesh2k:
Windows on the other hand is pure simplicity.
--- End quote ---

I have to disagree on that part. Windows 8 anyone? :D

That Said I personally found enlightenment the ugliest manager ever. :P

Besides linux distro options are not that bad. I mean having 1k or 10k distro doesn't change the fact that you have to select the window manager of your choice and move on with it. What's wrong with having 10k or more distros? nothing. It's just that people are bombarded with options and they feel wrong about it. As for apple, it is getting way worst hell. Restriction is hell, packaged in sugar candy. Not even windows is that bad. I must say, between windows, apple and linux, the percentage of hell quota is increasing on apple's side.

Renegade:
Windows on the other hand is pure simplicity.
--- End quote ---

I have to disagree on that part. Windows 8 anyone? :D
-mahesh2k (August 02, 2012, 06:16 PM)
--- End quote ---


I meant that exclusively in relation to creating software distribution packages, i.e. installers, setup files, packages, whatever anyone wants to call them.

If you know something I don't about how to sanely create a package for Linux, please, do tell me~! :)


That Said I personally found enlightenment the ugliest manager ever. :P
-mahesh2k (August 02, 2012, 06:16 PM)
--- End quote ---


I can see why some people wouldn't like it. I really liked the availablity of everything everywhere.

40hz:
I LOVE the Enlightenment desktop... oh god... It's just divine! Best one I've ever seen.
-Renegade (August 02, 2012, 02:06 PM)
--- End quote ---

Gotta agree with mahesk2k in saying I really don't like it. Even Bodhi, which did Enlightenment better than anyone else, was still annoying. I felt like I was sitting in front of some 80s era researcher's notion of what the "Desktop of the Future" would look and work like. It seems funny (to me) how the Enlightenment developers think they're so forward looking when the whole Enlightenment environment strikes me as actually being rather retro. And not in a good way either.

But that's me. I like fairly boring desktop/windows managers that have a minimum of pyrotechnics and eye candy. And I truly dislike anything resembling a widget, or that uses a widget paradigm. Think I'll stick to my old favorite: Xfce. :up:

Actually, this Bodhi desktop doesn't look half bad:

mswin vs linux in academia

Hmm... ;D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page