Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Rhinorhino on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Windows vs Linux !?
- Thread starter phpdude
- Start date
This has been debated to death and to find a sure one reAason answer will never happen. Like when you by a car do you like Ford or Chevy? As for my opinion I like both but prefer linux and still use windows. I use windows for my Access Programming I use linux for just about everything else. As for Software I can find just about everything in Linux that I use in windows and it is free, there is just a learning curve, that I don't really have time for right now, which is another reason I keep windows. Linux has come a long way and still has some way to go, but it needs the support of the OSS community. As for the OS's compare Linux is more powerful but there is the learning curve, unless you Love DOS then it probaly wouldn't be to bad. As for Bugs in the OS hmmm If your in windows you need to wait for a patch, if you are not a programmer in Linux you need to wait for a fix, but if you can program you can fix it yourself, source code is provided. To me that is a big Plus!
As for windows 95 and 98 since niether can be used as a server in a client/server envirorment Linux maybe a better choice. Win2K Server on the other hand is easier to configure, though Linux is coming along nicely in its ease of configuration, and if you have a powerful machine the slowness of Win2K wouldn't be a prob. Also win2k being the sole interface between hardware and software has made it more stable than previous versions of win9X and WinME. This may be a big factor when deciding on what to use since most people are familar with Windows. Security, you can secure Both operating systems as much or as little as you want it is dependent on you. So now that I have given no absolelute answer to your quest I would suggest that you Dual boot with Win2K and Linux and compare the 2 and draw your own conclusions, but I have found that dual booting with both has been optimal for me...
Dave
ToeShot@Hotmail.com
Today Is Tomorrows Yesterday. So Why Wait
As for windows 95 and 98 since niether can be used as a server in a client/server envirorment Linux maybe a better choice. Win2K Server on the other hand is easier to configure, though Linux is coming along nicely in its ease of configuration, and if you have a powerful machine the slowness of Win2K wouldn't be a prob. Also win2k being the sole interface between hardware and software has made it more stable than previous versions of win9X and WinME. This may be a big factor when deciding on what to use since most people are familar with Windows. Security, you can secure Both operating systems as much or as little as you want it is dependent on you. So now that I have given no absolelute answer to your quest I would suggest that you Dual boot with Win2K and Linux and compare the 2 and draw your own conclusions, but I have found that dual booting with both has been optimal for me...
Dave
ToeShot@Hotmail.com
Today Is Tomorrows Yesterday. So Why Wait
- Thread starter
- #3
I have used Linux befor in diferent distros, just that when i have tested it i have found everything i need in drivers and most software but as for games its a problem. As Linux does have a Open source yeah thats a benafit but as it is im suprised at the lack of suport for the system, as it could take over MS if companys put there asses into suporting it.
Companies Like Mandrake, SuSe, Red Hat and so do support Linux but do tothe Linux Licensing they Can't develop linux commercially so it is up to the Linux coomunity at large to Develop softweare for games. here is a site you could check out
Dave
ToeShot@Hotmail.com
Today Is Tomorrows Yesterday. So Why Wait
Dave
ToeShot@Hotmail.com
Today Is Tomorrows Yesterday. So Why Wait
- Thread starter
- #5
Depends on your skill level, Mandrake from My understanding is the easiest to install and configure. I use redhat and there install process is simple and straight forward. The only prob is that these distro's are insecure like windows out of the box. Slackware on the other hand from what I remember is more secure but you need to know linux to configure everything that you need to configure like sound and video, or at least that is the way it was with 7.1 and earlier
Dave
ToeShot@Hotmail.com
Today Is Tomorrows Yesterday. So Why Wait
Dave
ToeShot@Hotmail.com
Today Is Tomorrows Yesterday. So Why Wait
- Thread starter
- #7
I really think a lot of distros come with too much stuff you'll never end up using. Can you really be bothered downloading 7 disks to install SuSE or even three to install Red Hat? I am not bagging them, but I believe one disk is enough.
My favourite distro is Vector SOHO 3.2. It is Slackware based, yet comes with all the things you need for Office computing, development, etc. Futhermore, it excellent hardware acceleration, and automatically installs and configures Nvidia drivers for you. Now thats service. It also has three windows managers: KDE, IceWM and XFCE. When you login, you simlpy choose which one to use for your session.
It has improved on Slackware in that it has much better flexibility. It is very versatile and well worth downloading. I would take a look at it if I were you.
My favourite distro is Vector SOHO 3.2. It is Slackware based, yet comes with all the things you need for Office computing, development, etc. Futhermore, it excellent hardware acceleration, and automatically installs and configures Nvidia drivers for you. Now thats service. It also has three windows managers: KDE, IceWM and XFCE. When you login, you simlpy choose which one to use for your session.
It has improved on Slackware in that it has much better flexibility. It is very versatile and well worth downloading. I would take a look at it if I were you.
- Thread starter
- #9
>>>My favourite distro is Vector SOHO 3.2. It is Slackware based, yet comes with all the things you need for Office computing, development, etc....
If anything, they ought to use a Debian base instead. Ol' Slack was made to be a bsd-like server quality OS. Nothing running at startup and you do all of installation past 1 disc yourself.
Debian also includes "real" package management. And dont tell me .tgz is package management ;-)
My point is you'd have to hack on a bunch of stuff for Slack to be even close to a desktop-like system.
If anything, they ought to use a Debian base instead. Ol' Slack was made to be a bsd-like server quality OS. Nothing running at startup and you do all of installation past 1 disc yourself.
Debian also includes "real" package management. And dont tell me .tgz is package management ;-)
My point is you'd have to hack on a bunch of stuff for Slack to be even close to a desktop-like system.
OK,
lets go and download 7 disks. apt-get is dodgy with those who have 56k modems. Alternatives like knoppix are quirky when installed.
Vector can also use apt-get which can be configured. It is called SOHO for "Small Office" "Home Office", which the name implies. This is the first attempt for Slack into the desktop realm and it very good.
So far I have nothing wrong with it, and performing better than RH. A lot better hdarware support than Debian as well. To date, Debians hardware support is somewhat crap, requiring more configuration and messing about.
I ask you. Which is harder to install? Slack or Debian. If you answer Debian, I think you a little nuts. Do you think this person, with little knowledge of Linux is going to find installing Debian easy?
lets go and download 7 disks. apt-get is dodgy with those who have 56k modems. Alternatives like knoppix are quirky when installed.
Vector can also use apt-get which can be configured. It is called SOHO for "Small Office" "Home Office", which the name implies. This is the first attempt for Slack into the desktop realm and it very good.
So far I have nothing wrong with it, and performing better than RH. A lot better hdarware support than Debian as well. To date, Debians hardware support is somewhat crap, requiring more configuration and messing about.
I ask you. Which is harder to install? Slack or Debian. If you answer Debian, I think you a little nuts. Do you think this person, with little knowledge of Linux is going to find installing Debian easy?
Phpdude,
so why pick it ?
1. because it ran wonderful things like PHP and Apache before Windows ever did! (and it does a better job at it too)
2. because I don't get stuck in licencing schemes, proprietary format wars or having to pay for my software.
3. because I get a sense of raw power when I compile my software to run on my system.
4. I do no worry about viruses at all.
Gary Haran
==========================
so why pick it ?
1. because it ran wonderful things like PHP and Apache before Windows ever did! (and it does a better job at it too)
2. because I don't get stuck in licencing schemes, proprietary format wars or having to pay for my software.
3. because I get a sense of raw power when I compile my software to run on my system.
4. I do no worry about viruses at all.
Gary Haran
==========================
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question