This thread is to debate about Linux and Windows. Which is better, why, whatever you have to say about the opposing operating system. Rules - You must have a civil argument. You are allowed to use links to other websites to prove your point. You must'nt use single sentences to prove superiority. Two sentences are sufficient, paragraphs are pleasing. I shall raise the first argument. Linux is better than Windows in the aspect of development. I use my computer everyday for programming, web design, etc. It is especially easy to navigate, where as Windows has multiple directories and some even seem useless.

Linux -vs- Windows

Equinox

This thread is to debate about Linux and Windows. Which is better, why, whatever you have to say about the opposing operating system.

Rules -

You must have a civil argument.
You are allowed to use links to other websites to prove your point.
You must'nt use single sentences to prove superiority. Two sentences are sufficient, paragraphs are pleasing.

I shall raise the first argument.

Linux is better than Windows in the aspect of development. I use my computer everyday for programming, web design, etc. It is especially easy to navigate, where as Windows has multiple directories and some even seem useless.

r313o

I think Linux is better than Windows. Customization is SO much better on Linux, take anything from http://www.reddit.com/r/unixporn for example, it looks so much better than Windows. And for average users, they're Chromebooks which work fine for AVERAGE users. And when WINE is fully functional, power users and gamers can switch, maybe it's not ready yet, but by 2020, Linux will dominate desktops, servers, phones, routers, subway stations, everything. The only thing keeping M$ and Winblows alive is Samsung, because M$ is a fucking patent troll, and Samsung pays them 1 billion dollars a year for those patents. (source= http://qz.com/276242/microsoft-makes-more-money-from-samsung-than-from-skype-windows-phone-and-xbox-combined/ )

kenblu24

I dispute the opinion that linux is easier to navigate than windows. While I am new to linux, I found the file system very odd. I didn't know how the folders were organized, or where things would be.

I'd love to know what the "useless directories" are, not sure what you mean by that.

Most businesses use Windows. For other non-pc devices however I will admit linux is miles better.

Equinox

kenblu24 wrote:
I dispute the opinion that linux is easier to navigate than windows. While I am new to linux, I found the file system very odd. I didn't know how the folders were organized, or where things would be.

I'd love to know what the "useless directories" are, not sure what you mean by that.

Most businesses use Windows. For other non-pc devices however I will admit linux is miles better.

A lot of Windows directories can be cut. I.e. the "users" directory. It's C:/Windows/Users/username, as opposed to linux directories for users, which most are just /home/username.

kenblu24

A lot of Windows directories can be cut. I.e. the "users" directory. It's C:/Windows/Users/username, as opposed to linux directories for users, which most are just /home/username.

It's actually C:/Users/username

r313o

kenblu, busniess' could save a lot of money by using Linux, for example let's say they have 14 computers. Windows 7 costs 137$, multiply that by 14, and it's $1918, then Office is $450, multiply that by 14 and it's $6300 on office, ad that with the copys of OEM Windows 7, and it's $8218 on software. Where as with Linux and LibreOffice, that's an extra $8218 in the business' bank account.

kenblu24

r313o wrote:
kenblu, busniess' could save a lot of money by using Linux, for example let's say they have 14 computers. Windows 7 costs 137$, multiply that by 14, and it's $1918, then Office is $450, multiply that by 14 and it's $6300 on office, ad that with the copys of OEM Windows 7, and it's $8218 on software. Where as with Linux and LibreOffice, that's an extra $8218 in the business' bank account.

I know few businesses that use computers that they've built themselves. As for other software, windows users still have the choice of using either Office or an open source alternative.

r313o

Sure they can use an Open source Office suit on Windows, but OEM Windows still ads extra cost to the computer because the manufacturer has to buy it.

kenblu24

Well where are you going to get the computer? It's going to be sold with windows or osx. I've yet to meet a linux user in real life, let alone a person who bought a linux prebuilt.

Equinox

kenblu24 wrote:
Well where are you going to get the computer? It's going to be sold with windows or osx. I've yet to meet a linux user in real life, let alone a person who bought a linux prebuilt.

A lot of machines aren't built with Linux on them; most Linux distros' profit is built solely off of donations by their users, since most are free and open source. Some, however, do have the money to put the operating systems on machines, i.e. Ubuntu.

kenblu24

I don't consider Linux to be a business oriented OS. It has applications in business such as POS, networking, kiosks, etc, but in none of those situations will there be a difference between Windows and Linux.

Equinox

kenblu24 wrote:
I don't consider Linux to be a business oriented OS. It has applications in business such as POS, networking, kiosks, etc, but in none of those situations will there be a difference between Windows and Linux.

With Linux you can do database management and networking easily. With Windows you would have to use a program of some sort or make your own, either way, it'd be harder. And for networking you would need to know a language that can do networking in the first place, I.E. Python (low-level networking, but still networking). Linux comes with Python, which enables easy access to networking (low-level, but still networking) because you can just import the module. Another thing is how easy it is to access the bash shell as opposed to Winows, inwhich the command line interface needs to be accessed through an administrative account, AND through the start button or at the least a notepad document saved as a batch file.

kenblu24

Equinox wrote:
With Linux you can do database management and networking easily. With Windows you would have to use a program of some sort or make your own, either way, it'd be harder. And for networking you would need to know a language that can do networking in the first place, I.E. Python (low-level networking, but still networking). Linux comes with Python, which enables easy access to networking (low-level, but still networking) because you can just import the module.

I would think few businesses, especially small businesses, would not need to use such features very often. Most people don't know python, or networking in general. (Hell, I don't know what python has to do with networking, or what it means in this context.)

Another thing is how easy it is to access the bash shell as opposed to Winows, inwhich the command line interface needs to be accessed through an administrative account, AND through the start button or at the least a notepad document saved as a batch file.

Batch files would be used for automation, linux has its equivalents.

Most settings in Windows are GUI based, rather than command based, which is why the command console (now powershell) is given less emphasis than linux. Each has its ups and downs. If each OS's settings were in a house, Windows would be composed of doors leading to rooms with more labeled doors, where the user would, after going through a couple of doors, open up one final door to access a couple of switches: a slightly less convenient method of performing a task, but one that is easy to perform, as the labels on the doors hand-hold the user. Unix would be a very large room filled with doors, some labeled clearly, some not so much. Behind each of the doors: a single switch, performing one task. Here any task you desire can be quickly performed by opening a door and flipping a switch, but which door? This setup is great for those that can memorize commands and type quickly, and without the internet or some other resource as your map, it can be very intimidating for the user.

This is how I feel about GUI vs Command console. It is almost hidden away in Windows, although it is easily accessible in two clicks in 8.1

will continue after this, need sleep

Equinox

kenblu24 wrote:
Equinox wrote:
With Linux you can do database management and networking easily. With Windows you would have to use a program of some sort or make your own, either way, it'd be harder. And for networking you would need to know a language that can do networking in the first place, I.E. Python (low-level networking, but still networking). Linux comes with Python, which enables easy access to networking (low-level, but still networking) because you can just import the module.

I would think few businesses, especially small businesses, would not need to use such features very often. Most people don't know python, or networking in general. (Hell, I don't know what python has to do with networking, or what it means in this context.)

Another thing is how easy it is to access the bash shell as opposed to Winows, inwhich the command line interface needs to be accessed through an administrative account, AND through the start button or at the least a notepad document saved as a batch file.

Batch files would be used for automation, linux has its equivalents.

Most settings in Windows are GUI based, rather than command based, which is why the command console (now powershell) is given less emphasis than linux. Each has its ups and downs. If each OS's settings were in a house, Windows would be composed of doors leading to rooms with more labeled doors, where the user would, after going through a couple of doors, open up one final door to access a couple of switches: a slightly less convenient method of performing a task, but one that is easy to perform, as the labels on the doors hand-hold the user. Unix would be a very large room filled with doors, some labeled clearly, some not so much. Behind each of the doors: a single switch, performing one task. Here any task you desire can be quickly performed by opening a door and flipping a switch, but which door? This setup is great for those that can memorize commands and type quickly, and without the internet or some other resource as your map, it can be very intimidating for the user.

This is how I feel about GUI vs Command console. It is almost hidden away in Windows, although it is easily accessible in two clicks in 8.1

will continue after this, need sleep

Look up Python's "socket" module to understand what it has to do with netowrking. As far as the doors reference goes, UNIX is more like a large room with multiple desks on the inside. Each desk holds information for specific tasks and operations, whilst one desk is the "master" (this would be the root user) and then one that follows second in command (the user that is logged in). Then, on each desk is a button. This can open more doors that are also inside of the room. The desk second in command can control SOME of these desks, and the master desk can control all.

Don't forget *NIX operating systems aren't all CLI.

clicky

MacMasterRace
[spoiler]
I'm only half joking, once you're used to a mac, it makes development far more convenient.

I currently run CrunchBang on my desktop and prefer it to Windows, quite a lot.
[/spoiler]

kenblu24

Equinox wrote:

I was using the analogy to refer to the fact that Linux is great for power users that take the time to learn it. Windows however is easier to use as most of its advanced settings have guis. There's very little guessing involved.

If I sat down at a linux box and wanted to change whether a program is started at login, I wouldn't know what to type unless I googled it or had prior knowledge. On windows, using the task manager, just click the "startup" tab and it gives you a list of all the programs. No hunting for the actual file. No having to set entries for a file. Click a button and it doesn't start.

If I spent a lot more time on Linux, and didn't have a lot of storage space, I'm sure I'd appreciate the small OS footprint, but I don't want to ask google every five seconds when trying to set something up.

Equinox

kenblu24 wrote:
I was using the analogy to refer to the fact that Linux is great for power users that take the time to learn it. Windows however is easier to use as most of its advanced settings have guis. There's very little guessing involved.

If I sat down at a linux box and wanted to change whether a program is started at login, I wouldn't know what to type unless I googled it or had prior knowledge. On windows, using the task manager, just click the "startup" tab and it gives you a list of all the programs. No hunting for the actual file. No having to set entries for a file. Click a button and it doesn't start.

If I spent a lot more time on Linux, and didn't have a lot of storage space, I'm sure I'd appreciate the small OS footprint, but I don't want to ask google every five seconds when trying to set something up.

Well some Linux distributions are made specifically for people coming from Windows, making things easier. Let's say a GUI on task manager instead of having the top command in terminal. How about Ubuntu? Ubuntu has a really "advanced" GUI considering it's a Linux based distro, yet at the same time all the functionality in Linux remains as well as the traits of what make it it. Windows may seem easier, but in the long run it may actually end up harder to use. I'm thirteen, I've been using computers since I was four, I've used Windows for eight years, yet I still find Linux much easier to use. It's kind of like a puzzle; it may seem hard at first, but once you put it together the first time, you can go back a second time knowing what to expect.

Senpai wrote:
MacMasterRace
[spoiler]
I'm only half joking, once you're used to a mac, it makes development far more convenient.

I currently run CrunchBang on my desktop and prefer it to Windows, quite a lot.
[/spoiler]

CrunchBang Master Race.

Kusoneko

r313o wrote:
kenblu, busniess' could save a lot of money by using Linux, for example let's say they have 14 computers. Windows 7 costs 137$, multiply that by 14, and it's $1918, then Office is $450, multiply that by 14 and it's $6300 on office, ad that with the copys of OEM Windows 7, and it's $8218 on software. Where as with Linux and LibreOffice, that's an extra $8218 in the business' bank account.

This is false. The business only needs to set up a KMS server, which serves the purpose of activating every copies of Windows on every PC on the local network and the same can be done with office. Any brilliant business running on Windows has at least one server running on Windows Server 2003, 2008, 2008 R2, 2012 or 2012 R2, and they only need to put a KMS on one and all their problems are solved. That means they only pay for one server's license, and the other licenses are literally free due to the KMS.

Equinox wrote:
And for networking you would need to know a language that can do networking in the first place, I.E. Python (low-level networking, but still networking). Linux comes with Python, which enables easy access to networking (low-level, but still networking) because you can just import the module.

Pretty much any languages can do networking, provided they have the libraries for it, for example C#, C, C++, Java, etc.. They all can do networking, and furthermore, the networking libraries are part of the .Net Framework for C#, C and C++, which comes with Windows, so you just have to call the functions you want to use in your code without thinking about importing anything since they are already integrated with Windows.

Equinox wrote:
Another thing is how easy it is to access the bash shell as opposed to Winows, inwhich the command line interface needs to be accessed through an administrative account, AND through the start button or at the least a notepad document saved as a batch file.

You're actually trying to tell me it's hard to access cmd.exe on Windows? Seriously? [Windows key] + cmd + [Enter key] = hard? As for the administrative account thing, it's kind of false. You can access it from any account so long as no one has set Group Policies that makes every groups but Administrators group unable to access the cmd. Honestly, it's pretty much the same as Linux on that side, if you want to use some commands for which a normal user doesn't have any access, then you need to run the command line as an administrator, aka root on Linux. Also, as for the batch file thing. Aren't batch files exactly the same concept as .sh files?

Equinox

Kusoneko wrote:
You're actually trying to tell me it's hard to access cmd.exe on Windows? Seriously? [Windows key] + cmd + [Enter key] = hard?

It IS hard, because I don't need to type anything with fack-a-doodlin' linux. I just hit super+t and terminal opens.

I'm not going to respond to anything else because it all makes me want to hurt myself. No offense to you, though, my dear friend.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Both have their pros and cons imo, I wouldn't use Linux as a main os however mainly because I both prefer the interface and feel of Windows as well as the fact that I grew up with it.
I would never go Windows for any sort of server though, fuck that.