Quote from: 40hz

Should I go on?

Yes, preferably a long trip! 

Hey! I just noticed it's pretty damp at this end of the pier!

Come to think of it, am I looking to get sued just in time for the holidays?

Sued, or stewed? 

Quote from: 40hz on December 04, 2008, 09:08 PM

Come to think of it, am I looking to get sued just in time for the holidays?

Sued, or stewed? 

That's burned either way, I'm afraid.

You guys may not have the balls to say that "linux is better", but I certainly do. There are thousands of quantitative reasons, which can be very easily argued among computer science literate individuals of why linux and the linux kernel is _FAR_ superior to windows. This isn't just something computer scientists argue that means nothing to the end user, it just means that the regular computer user simply does not understand these concepts, and if they did they would probably just revolt with senseless nonsense like "so, that's not important", when if properly adopted it would be very important.

Here are a few reasons why linux is far superior to windows in design. First and foremost, linux has found what is wrong with windows and fixed it. This is something linux can do because users of linux are phenomenal at fast adaptation of changes in standards. Windows users, however, are phenomenal at slow-to-no adaptation of new standards. If a change in windows will negatively affect a business, it will not happen in windows. Linux, however, is different. This is just a concept, lets get to tooth and nail differences that make one superior.

Preemptive multitasking. Basically means linux can not crash unless the kernel crashes. Very important for many reasons. How many times you had to reboot your computer because of a hung app? Even though it's gotten better, windows still yet does not use preemptive multitasking. Windows relies on processes being 'polite', and giving the processor to each other when needed, while the linux kernel gives a process a set time for holding the processor before the kernel retrieves the processor back. No matter the 'opinion' of the process, it can not hold the processor longer than it has been allotted.

Everything is a program. Meaning, Linux can be less than 2MB in size for a fully functional Linux operating system. Windows can't do this, not even its compact edition.

Portability. Linux can be ran, easily and natively, on basically every CPU architecture made. It can run on a powerpc mac, it can run on x86 windows processor, a RISC chip in mobile devices, the list goes on. This is something that windows and mac both can definitely not say. Yea, it can be ported, but this takes a long tedious time. The linux kernel just needs recompiling with the drivers for the device loaded. This calls for rapid deployment on a very wide range of new devices.

Linux can be as big or as little as necessary (see portability), meaning it can pretty much run on any computer ever made, or any embedded device, for that matter. One look at Windows Vista requirements, and it becomes obvious to you very quickly that Vista was not designed with older PC's in mind. Windows XP, for that matter, has quite steep system requirements when compared to its predecessor Win98. I know you're going to say windows has gotten better, and hardware has too, making it make sense to require more resources.... save it, I'm not an idiot, I know this. What you fail to realize though is that basically this means older PC's can't run anything but windows 98, which is no longer supported officially by microsoft meaning that viruses and so on run rampid. Basically this means there is no way in a 'windows-user' mind to be able to use an old PC such as that. Suddenly, this means that the computer is useless and must be thrown out. What was that about saving the environment you were just on about? Do you realize just how many toxins are in PC's? Especially older ones.

There are many other reasons, but I'm too lazy to go on and I need to get some things done before the sun goes down. My primary point in this whole thing is that Linux *IS* better, in many ways than windows. As far as design, it's basically like comparing a regular built house to a hurricane resistant built home on the coast of Miami. Yea, one can argue (lol) that the regular house is "better", since "better" is a relative term, but from an engineering standpoint there is absolutely positively no comparison.

The primary reasons Windows excels beyond Linux so well is because it is made with commercialism as its number 1 concern. Linux, however, is not. Therefore, it may never be commercially fit (unless that very thing changes). Linux has too many arguments, and has a problem with coordination and no "feature freezes" of the linux operating system as a whole. If you simply say you are using linux, this means nothing at all as Linux is not unified. If you say "I'm using windows XP", however, that really means something because windows XP is a very strongly unified body of code. This is the simple and pure advantage windows has on linux, and its so strong that while linux may get bigger, I seriously doubt it will ever take over unless there is commercialism as a primary driving means. Commercialism prioritizes things that linux not only does not care about, but outright refutes, such as everyone using one way to do something. It only takes 1 linux user thinking there is a better way and making that 'better way' to create 2 ways to do something, meaning after you are doing something that requires a program standing on the shoulders of 20 apps, you have something to the effect of 20^2 different software configurations to get to that point, and any number of things could be going wrong. This essentially makes it so that people are damn near impossible to figure out exactly what the problem is with their linux system and how to fix it the best way. This is difficult even in the extremely unified windows and many times results in a system restore/reformat. Linux just makes it exponentially harder due to its lack of unification.

It's because of these reasons that Linux is not well adapted, and it's because of that reason that commercial developers care very little about their software running on Linux. This puts Linux at a double fatal downfall. Few things are designed for it, hardware or software, and Linux does not care for commercialism currently meaning it will never grow to become a commercial product.

You guys may not have the balls to say that "linux is better", but I certainly do. There are thousands of quantitative reasons, which can be very easily argued among computer science literate individuals of why linux and the linux kernel is _FAR_ superior to windows.

We have the balls to start that argument, but the question is, will we solve it? Absolutely not. That MY-OS-IS-BEST argument plays in many different flavors, depending on who you are and what you do with a computer. Since the Linux vs. Windows (vs. Mac) argument is ongoing -- I've seen Mac and Microsoft go at it for almost 25 years and both are still there, as Linux has been since '94 and will be -- the argument is never finished. To me, there are better ways to spend my time.

My own argument is not which OS you use, but can I collaborate with you? I'd rather my OS seek to establish interoperability among products built to the IETF, OASIS, HTML 5, World Wide Web Consortium, and other standards. Other questions one should ask are:
-- Do I have the freedom to leave?
-- Are my data portable?
-- Do interoperable products for the 'product class' exist; that is, are they interchangeable?

Software interchangeability goes beyond formats, protocols, APIs, user interface, and operating system support, and also includes in-application programmability. Note that these issues apply not just to standalone desktop applications but also to software delivered through a web browser. Does your choice of OS promote this concept or does it frustrate it?

The primary reasons Windows excels beyond Linux so well is because it is made with commercialism as its number 1 concern.... Few things are designed for it, hardware or software, and Linux does not care for commercialism currently meaning it will never grow to become a commercial product.

Ah, the No Free Lunch reason is alive and well. The "cloud" is largely a marketing myth promoted to give false hope to customers who will only later discover that implementations, not standards, dictate costs. Otherwise it is merely a race where the fastest company to market is not permitted to outpace the slowest gazelle, or as it's playing out right now, the company with the deepest pockets can give away the most services, and by doing so, dominates the market until everyone else's pockets are empty.

(See Sun.)

Microsoft can't buy Linux. It can't sue it for patent infringement (it's threatened to, but it has no case there). Microsoft can't sell Windows cheaper than Linux, since it's already free. And it can't outspend Linux. Because of the portability and scalability you mention, Linux is already built for the cloud, for mobile, for netbooks, for mainframes, for large Hadron Colliders, and so on. Windows has to be retooled for a netbook, and even then, you're going to get an 8-year old version of their last OS that will cost you at least $150-$200. Traditional, big corporate takeover attack methods don't apply to Linux, so the whole damn enterprise that is 'Linux' leaves Redmond frustrated and feeling threatened, not on the desktop of course, but on the server side, where the real money is.
______________________
The best thing Microsoft could do would be to make sure Win7 is the opposite of what Vista was. Win7 doesn't have to be perfect. All it has to do is be lighter and faster, and less annoying in some areas (UAC, Explorer, fewer than a half dozen versions). If they do this, they'll be fine, and a billion people will be happy again.

Sorry if my post wasn't completely accurate. My studies on the workings of linux are aging and it's showing. My memories of it are beginning to fade and I can no longer present a 100% accurate to book argument about it, and I am too lazy to research the topics as they come up.

Ultimately, I don't see any of you doing much better, however. I wont go through and quote all of your quotes as you did mine, because I value my time more than that. The arguments brought up against what I have had to say, however, are pretty weak. There is a power with Linux, just admit that. I have admitted that Windows is better in many aspects, so I don't see why you can't throw Linux a bone too.

I wont argue with people who are unable to think from a neutral standpoint on the subject, as I am willing and able to do. I say these things not as a linux or windows advocate, I actually hate both equally. Mac is no where near something I love, either. I have an appreciation for all operating systems, but there isn't one that I truly love beyond others. Are there OS's I think are better? Yea, I clearly stated that in the beginning of my post when I said that Linux is better, and I truly still think it is. Some of my examples may be flawed, but there are a million more where they come from. Ultimately, Linux puts power in the hands of its users, whereas Windows does not, and this is where the power of Linux comes into play. Linux does many things way differently... And in many ways, "better". Linux is normally the first to adopt new things such as IPv6, and is inherently more secure.

Your whole analogy about a more complicated mouse trap verses a more complicated trap is absolutely positively untrue. If you disagree yourself, then why does Windows Vista try to implement new administration features which mirror that of the way Linux has worked from its outset? Linux and BSD have both worked very well to box things in, keep things seperate, jailed, etc. While Windows has more or less been on a model of personal computer 1 account 1 user etc. Sure it has multiple user accounts, but support for multiple users and multiple access privileges on a PC are very weak, especially when compared to strong user systems such as any *NIX style OS.

BTW, sorry about being wrong about preemptive multitasking not being available on Windows. I am well capable of making mistakes, and did not intend for my post here to be taken as a college thesis. Had I truly been wanting to make a case of windows vs linux, I would certainly give it more time and attention as well as site all of my sources. That isn't my intent, rather my intent is to let others know my *opinion* (take it or leave it) about the topic. Quickly stated, my opinion is that in many ways Linux is better (and therefore is overall *better*), but I also feel it will never take over as a dominant operating system. Disagree all you like, but truth does indeed support my opinion of it.

Finally, I'd like to say just because I believe Linux is overall "better" than Windows doesn't mean I dislike Windows, or believe it's a terrible OS. I feel it will stay in the lead, and I am more than happy with it doing that. I like windows, and I really don't think its ease of use is behind anything. Windows is a master at allowing a user to truly feel in control, even of powerful easy to do tweaks and such without a heck of a lot of knowledge or effort on the users behalf. The same is most definitely not true (in my opinion) when it comes to Linux.

I started reading this thread about 10 minutes, so please forgive my dated replies.
I'm afraid I can't subscribe to this IE/FF metaphor gentlemen. As a sysadmin, I'm bound to windows as a part of my job.
I am, however, free to choose my browser. Why? Because my browser is not nearly as central to the use of my machine as my operating system is. Nor does it create nearly the level of compatibility problems using Linux in a Windows workplace would (fortunately most webmasters have had the foresight to steer clear of ActiveX in-browser).

Nor can I concur with the comparison to QWERTY/DVORAK. If you have a problem with Linux, you search for a solution and you fix it. If you don't know how to do something in Linux, you search for instructions and you follow them.
If you move to DVORAK, you're completely on your own. Not only that, but if you've been typing 50 WPM in QWERTY, how do you then function typing 20 WPM in DVORAK?
On a more personal note, there's a gentleman where I work that uses DVORAK on his work laptop. Since I've been there (almost 3 months now) I've had to reset his password 4 times. That does not include any occasion when my boss has done it. I've not yet had to reset the password of any other member of staff more than once.

Ehtyar.

P.S. Yay 40hz and Edvard

Oddly, kids say they prefer simple keypads to larger QWERTY pads on mobile devices. I presume it has something to do with their netspeak, or whatever the term for the slang is.

QWERY keypads are inefficient on mobile devices. Either they become big and clumsy (and requires moving your fingers "large" distances == slower typing, potential strain) or the keys become way too small (hard to hit). The standard 12-key pad (8 keys with characters, 4 for controlling case, space, special chars) combined with the efficiency of T9 dictionaries makes it very fast and efficient to write text messages - even without resorting to the ugly SMS language that teens (and, sad to say, some adults) use.

I know that SMS data is transferred in the "control channels", but does that mean there's no telco peering costs involved? Even if there is, I'm still pretty confident that it's super overprice. But it's extremely handy, and not everybody has super fancy phones with email capabilities (GPRS/EDGE traffic is insanely expensive too, btw) - personally I'm back on a Nokia 3310 after my SE k750i died.

I don't agree with you that T9 is a bad thing, not at all actually. I really hate "R", "U" and all that SMS-speak, but that's not the fault of T9 (au contraire, actually - T9 makes it possible to write proper words). Kiddos use that kind of writing even when they're on a proper keyboard, and when there's no time-pressure (ie, forum posts or email as opposed to instant messaging). Fortunately, a lot of them grow out of the habit.

Not taking SMS seriously is imho a bit too elitist - as long as you aren't faced with inane babble like "wat r u doin?"

Here in Paraguay the official language is Spanish, but not the European version. The unofficial language that everybody speaks is Guarani (especially when you set one foot outside the capital). Have you any idea how hard it is to get something from a message when both languages are mixed together and words are shortened to one character?

To me it is a royal pain in the (insert here other word for donkey), so to speak.

Elitist...never looked at it that way, though.   

Again, to me it is only natural to take the time to write something properly. Grammar and spelling, I mean. Content is a whole other matter. And use a proper medium to do deliver the message. 160 characters is not that much when trying to convey a message properly in my point of view.

Bah, sorry, I went and forgot all about this post. Well, like I said, it's been a long time since I've been deep in study on this subject and just to 'prove' to some strangers with no real benefit to me or Linux isn't compelling enough for me to write a well documented point in case about Linux and the reasons it's superior, and thus to fully explain myself, the reasons it's inferior. It's a great thing and has its place, but its place isn't necessarily on the mainstream PC for many reasons. It is possible that perhaps that will change someday, but only if there is a drastic change which is usually triggered by something.

I appreciate linux for all that it is, but a Windows replacement is not what it is.