Apple, Microsoft, or Linux?

[UNIverseVERSE]

Except on points a, b, and c.

a) 'root@hobytla# apt-get install foo' (or graphical installer of choice)

b) 'user@hobytla$ foo' (or graphical menu of choice)

For c), I have programs open now that have been running for over three months. Without reliability issues.

Edit: Yes, my system is called hobytla -- it's a very diminutive computer, so I thought naming it with a word for 'hobbit' was appropriate. It's running Debian -- your distro of choice may have a different package manager, and so the first command would be changed as appropriate.

[The Tofu Islands]

What does an OS do? It provides a platform for running other software. (a) Is it easy to install that software? (b) Is it easy to find the software once it's installed? (c) Does the software run reliably? (d) Does the OS provide a secure platform for running that software?

In every category, Linux consistently beats Windows.

Except on points a, b, and c.

For point a, ever heard of synaptic?
(Which, naturally, comes pre-installed and easy to find on vanilla Ubuntu.)
For point b, ever heard of menus?
For point c, what isn't reliable about running the software?

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

I'm reading this increasingly large thead and I'm still none-the-wiser on why a Mac has more going for it than just Final Cut Pro and skilled PR guys.

Depending what you do, there technically are a lot of potentially useful applications. I know people who make a lot of use out of GarageBand and iPhoto (there's some face recognition software that picks out individuals in the photos) for instance.

Garageband and iPhoto both have Windows equivalents.

Ok. I was just mentioning some of the programs I know other people use that seem useful (though might I ask how much these windows equivalent programs are since I don't recall them coming with my windows machine?).

My mac still gives more stable connections to my remote linux machine letting me work from home easily. There isn't an equivalent of Papers for windows that I'm aware of. I've vaguely heard of some LaTeX programs for windows, but I haven't heard if they're any good etc.

Picasa is a fantastic iPhoto equivalent which is free. There are also several garageband equivalents out there for free. I'm not really into music editing so I haven't really looked into it. http://www.google.com/search?q=garageba ... =firefox-a

My dad does a lot of virtualization on the machine I built him for work and has said he hasn't had any problems. Don't know anything about latex or papers, but according to google there are some imitations out there, don't know how good they are.

[Hairless Kitten II]

I don't believe you. Source?

A brief history of the spreadsheet.

Where's written in your source:

"In 1990 Lotus Corporation was charging high fees for software that ran on the Windows platform. Microsoft then offered the same product written natively for Windows at a cheaper price. Customers then switched because it made sense."?

Because I don't see it.

Nice nitpicking. But apparently I stand corrected. Excel was eventually lauded as a superior product to Lotus 1-2-3 in 1988, as well as cheaper. Of course, Quattro was also considered a superior product and far cheaper than either of them, but few people even remember the name let alone the product. So my argument still stands: superior products do not succeed in our markets just because they're superior or cheap. People have to know about them, and not a lot of people paid attention to Quattro.

Why can't you say: "Sorry I'm mistaken, Microsoft didn't charge companies to pay an OS tax for running their software on Windows"

Do you know what you are saying at all? Lotus 1-2-3 was very know at that time. It was the standard in doing spreadsheet business.

Lotus Corporation was bigger than Microsoft till 1990...

Lotus had everything: money, tons of excellent programmers, the experience and the brand was know all over the world. And last but not least: a user base. They dominated the spreadsheet world.

[Treznor]

What does an OS do? It provides a platform for running other software. (a) Is it easy to install that software? (b) Is it easy to find the software once it's installed? (c) Does the software run reliably? (d) Does the OS provide a secure platform for running that software?

In every category, Linux consistently beats Windows.

Except on points a, b, and c.

Let's take, for example, a new piece of software I recently installed on both my computers. It's called Deluge. On Windows I went to the website, downloaded the software, ran the installer, went through the wizard and launched the software. It ran poorly with a huge memory footprint, likely because of the way Windows handles Java. Whenever the Deluge client updates, I'll need to check the website and repeat this process to get the latest version.

On my Linux box I went to the website, picked up the repository and verification key, added them to my software management program. Then I looked up "Deluge" in the application list and told it to install. It did so automatically without requiring any wizards or user intervention. I launched the program and it runs superfast, with a tiny memory footprint. Whenever the Deluge client updates, I will be notified and automatically receive the latest version.

For some reason, I don't find Windows to be the winner here.

[Dakini]

My dad does a lot of virtualization on the machine I built him for work and has said he hasn't had any problems. Don't know anything about latex or papers, but according to google there are some imitations out there, don't know how good they are.

Virtualization on another windows machine? I know this works. I haven't heard the same about windows-linux connections. For accessing my linux machine with xp it's mostly ssh-ing with cygwin which is pretty unreliable (e.g. crashes a lot).

[The_pantless_hero]

What does an OS do? It provides a platform for running other software. (a) Is it easy to install that software? (b) Is it easy to find the software once it's installed? (c) Does the software run reliably? (d) Does the OS provide a secure platform for running that software?

In every category, Linux consistently beats Windows.

Except on points a, b, and c.

Let's take, for example, a new piece of software I recently installed on both my computers. It's called Deluge. On Windows I went to the website, downloaded the software, ran the installer, went through the wizard and launched the software. It ran poorly with a huge memory footprint, likely because of the way Windows handles Java. Whenever the Deluge client updates, I'll need to check the website and repeat this process to get the latest version.

On my Linux box I went to the website, picked up the repository and verification key, added them to my software management program. Then I looked up "Deluge" in the application list and told it to install. It did so automatically without requiring any wizards or user intervention. I launched the program and it runs superfast, with a tiny memory footprint. Whenever the Deluge client updates, I will be notified and automatically receive the latest version.

For some reason, I don't find Windows to be the winner here.

That is like picking a piece of Adobe software and using it to compare Mac to Windows. Deluge was designed natively for Linux and was ported to Windows for what I imagine were shits and giggles.

[Dakini]

Except on points a, b, and c.

Let's take, for example, a new piece of software I recently installed on both my computers. It's called Deluge. On Windows I went to the website, downloaded the software, ran the installer, went through the wizard and launched the software. It ran poorly with a huge memory footprint, likely because of the way Windows handles Java. Whenever the Deluge client updates, I'll need to check the website and repeat this process to get the latest version.

On my Linux box I went to the website, picked up the repository and verification key, added them to my software management program. Then I looked up "Deluge" in the application list and told it to install. It did so automatically without requiring any wizards or user intervention. I launched the program and it runs superfast, with a tiny memory footprint. Whenever the Deluge client updates, I will be notified and automatically receive the latest version.

For some reason, I don't find Windows to be the winner here.

That is like picking a piece of Adobe software and using it to compare Mac to Windows. Deluge was designed natively for Linux and was ported to Windows for what I imagine were shits and giggles.

You mean you don't have to go through an install wizard for most programs on windows? This is news to me.

[Cannot think of a name]

I've owned both Macs and PCs. They're both good for different things. I really don't understand the obsessive fanboy love/hatred on this topic.

If you can't get irrationally bent out of shape and inappropriately self-righteous about purchases other people make, then the internet would collapse like a hollow shell.

Speaking of which, did you get rid of that antique Combi ... or did Cash for Clunkers only apply to a new Prius which you can't afford ...?

Combis are fairly green. It's usually quicker to walk.

Never! And she's not a clunker, dammit. She's a tourist attraction-

(Spanish tourists taking their photo with her on my island. This actually happens a lot.)

And she's not so much a Kombi as a Westy.

[UNIverseVERSE]

Virtualization on another windows machine? I know this works. I haven't heard the same about windows-linux connections. For accessing my linux machine with xp it's mostly ssh-ing with cygwin which is pretty unreliable (e.g. crashes a lot).

Use PuTTY. It's a clone of an XTerm, with a menu allowing one to open various connections to hosts -- SSH, Telnet, FTP, etc.

[New Kereptica]

Virtualization on another windows machine? I know this works. I haven't heard the same about windows-linux connections. For accessing my linux machine with xp it's mostly ssh-ing with cygwin which is pretty unreliable (e.g. crashes a lot).

Use PuTTY. It's a clone of an XTerm, with a menu allowing one to open various connections to hosts -- SSH, Telnet, FTP, etc.

PuTTY is indeed rather great.

[Disposablepuppetland]

What does an OS do? It provides a platform for running other software. (a) Is it easy to install that software? (b) Is it easy to find the software once it's installed? (c) Does the software run reliably? (d) Does the OS provide a secure platform for running that software?

In every category, Linux consistently beats Windows.

Except on points a, b, and c.

Have you ever used (and done sys admin tasks for) linux? If so, which distro?

For points (a) and (b) it's very dependant on the distro you're using and the software you're installing.
If your distro has a package manager and the software is in the repository, then great.
However, if you have to compile from source and chase loads of dependencies, then not so great.

Also with point (b), it's easy to run the software once installed, but what about actually finding it? Maybe it's not working properly, or you're trying to configure it differently. Linux software tends to be scattered all over the place. Windows is not exactly perfect on this either, with apps throwing half their files in system32 or the user's profile, but it's not quite as bad as Linux.

[Treznor]

Nice nitpicking. But apparently I stand corrected. Excel was eventually lauded as a superior product to Lotus 1-2-3 in 1988, as well as cheaper. Of course, Quattro was also considered a superior product and far cheaper than either of them, but few people even remember the name let alone the product. So my argument still stands: superior products do not succeed in our markets just because they're superior or cheap. People have to know about them, and not a lot of people paid attention to Quattro.

Why can't you say: "Sorry I'm mistaken, Microsoft didn't charge companies to pay an OS tax for running their software on Windows"

Do you know what you are saying at all? Lotus 1-2-3 was very know at that time. It was the standard in doing spreadsheet business.

Lotus Corporation was bigger than Microsoft till 1990...

Lotus had everything: money, tons of excellent programmers, the experience and the brand was know all over the world. And last but not least: a user base. They dominated the spreadsheet world.

Probably because you keep shifting your point. Here's mine: Microsoft used its OS platform to run third-party software companies out of business, like Lotus Corporation. I concede that Microsoft's Excel was deemed the superior software to Lotus 1-2-3 according to the reviews I found, but so was Quattro. Furthermore, Quattro's price vastly undercut Microsoft's, but never made a dent in the spreadsheet market. Microsoft controlled the platform and so their only real competitor was Lotus. Lotus even successfully sued Microsoft for infringing on their copyright, but ultimately lost because of Microsoft's marketing strategy. Future versions of Lotus exceeded Microsoft's offerings with Excel, but once they lost that momentum it became impossible to get it back.

That's just one example of Microsoft's business strategy. They never had the superior product, just superior marketing.

[Dakini]

Virtualization on another windows machine? I know this works. I haven't heard the same about windows-linux connections. For accessing my linux machine with xp it's mostly ssh-ing with cygwin which is pretty unreliable (e.g. crashes a lot).

Use PuTTY. It's a clone of an XTerm, with a menu allowing one to open various connections to hosts -- SSH, Telnet, FTP, etc.

Well, you get an xterm in cygwin ($ startxwin). Does PuTTY crash less?

*although I'm actually not very likely to use it anyway since as I said before, accessing my linux machine from my mac is pretty reliable.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

You mean you don't have to go through an install wizard for most programs on windows? This is news to me.

What's with the aversion to install wizards? I just mash the next button until it finishes itself.

[Treznor]

You mean you don't have to go through an install wizard for most programs on windows? This is news to me.

What's with the aversion to install wizards? I just mash the next button until it finishes itself.

What's easier? Trying to figure out what the install wizard or asking you, or just telling the computer to install the software you want? You'd be amazed how many calls are fielded by Help Desks asking for clarification on installation wizards. Average users expect computers to blow up on them if they push the wrong button, and that's largely due to Microsoft's architecture. The Blue Screen of Death isn't just a pretty phrase.

[Dakini]

What does an OS do? It provides a platform for running other software. (a) Is it easy to install that software? (b) Is it easy to find the software once it's installed? (c) Does the software run reliably? (d) Does the OS provide a secure platform for running that software?

In every category, Linux consistently beats Windows.

Except on points a, b, and c.

Have you ever used (and done sys admin tasks for) linux? If so, which distro?

For points (a) and (b) it's very dependant on the distro you're using and the software you're installing.
If your distro has a package manager and the software is in the repository, then great.
However, if you have to compile from source and chase loads of dependencies, then not so great.

I know, that's why I asked if he had used linux in a sys admin capability (first of all, it's not really meaningful to compare how easy/hard it is to install programs on different operating systems if you haven't done these tasks in different operating systems) and then asked which distro (because really, saying that linux is hard because you're doing it all in gentoo isn't exactly doing a fair windows-linux comparison). I suppose I should have asked about the use of package managers.

Also with point (b), it's easy to run the software once installed, but what about actually finding it? Maybe it's not working properly, or you're trying to configure it differently. Linux software tends to be scattered all over the place. Windows is not exactly perfect on this either, with apps throwing half their files in system32 or the user's profile, but it's not quite as bad as Linux.

I've never had much of a problem finding software in linux (although honestly it's easier in os x, but we're not talking about this right now I suppose).

[Hydesland]

What's easier? Trying to figure out what the install wizard or asking you, or just telling the computer to install the software you want?

I don't think that sentence means anything. However, I find install wizards actually a lot more useful than manually extracting, it saves a lot of time and reduces the likelihood of error.

[The_pantless_hero]

You mean you don't have to go through an install wizard for most programs on windows? This is news to me.

What's with the aversion to install wizards? I just mash the next button until it finishes itself.

What's easier? Trying to figure out what the install wizard or asking you, or just telling the computer to install the software you want? You'd be amazed how many calls are fielded by Help Desks asking for clarification on installation wizards. Average users expect computers to blow up on them if they push the wrong button, and that's largely due to Microsoft's architecture. The Blue Screen of Death isn't just a pretty phrase.

When was the last time anyone got a BSOD from normal computer use? 1999? Maybe help desks should tell people to update their computers from Windows 98.
Oh no, what is the install Wizard asking me here: "Would you like to put a shortcut on the desktop?"
Yeah, that's a way harder option than "something_or_other-1.8.0.1" - wtf does that do? Hell if I know.

[Dakini]

You mean you don't have to go through an install wizard for most programs on windows? This is news to me.

What's with the aversion to install wizards? I just mash the next button until it finishes itself.

This isn't always the best approach (for one). For another, this was about ease. What's easier, telling a computer to install something and it does this or telling the computer to do something and it asks for clarification at every step?
The post pantless replied to here was discussing how three things were easier in linux than windows, pantless replied about the functionality of one particular program that will be biased towards working better on linux without addressing any of the other points. I was merely pointing out that an install wizard is not unusual for windows programs.

[Treznor]

Except on points a, b, and c.

Have you ever used (and done sys admin tasks for) linux? If so, which distro?

For points (a) and (b) it's very dependant on the distro you're using and the software you're installing.
If your distro has a package manager and the software is in the repository, then great.
However, if you have to compile from source and chase loads of dependencies, then not so great.

Also with point (b), it's easy to run the software once installed, but what about actually finding it? Maybe it's not working properly, or you're trying to configure it differently. Linux software tends to be scattered all over the place. Windows is not exactly perfect on this either, with apps throwing half their files in system32 or the user's profile, but it's not quite as bad as Linux.

That's the biggest reason I run a variant of Ubuntu. The standard repositories have software I never even imagined existed, and for additional third party stuff it's a simple matter of adding another one. Pretty much every open source repository has a .deb build for Debian/Ubuntu installation. The last time I got stuck in "dependency hell" was when I was using Fedora 4. I last dealt with DLL hell in Windows a couple of years ago.

They're both getting better, but Windows insistence on bundling Microsoft software straight to the kernel is still a massive security risk.

[Hairless Kitten II]

Nice nitpicking. But apparently I stand corrected. Excel was eventually lauded as a superior product to Lotus 1-2-3 in 1988, as well as cheaper. Of course, Quattro was also considered a superior product and far cheaper than either of them, but few people even remember the name let alone the product. So my argument still stands: superior products do not succeed in our markets just because they're superior or cheap. People have to know about them, and not a lot of people paid attention to Quattro.

Why can't you say: "Sorry I'm mistaken, Microsoft didn't charge companies to pay an OS tax for running their software on Windows"

Do you know what you are saying at all? Lotus 1-2-3 was very know at that time. It was the standard in doing spreadsheet business.

Lotus Corporation was bigger than Microsoft till 1990...

Lotus had everything: money, tons of excellent programmers, the experience and the brand was know all over the world. And last but not least: a user base. They dominated the spreadsheet world.

Probably because you keep shifting your point. Here's mine: Microsoft used its OS platform to run third-party software companies out of business, like Lotus Corporation. I concede that Microsoft's Excel was deemed the superior software to Lotus 1-2-3 according to the reviews I found, but so was Quattro. Furthermore, Quattro's price vastly undercut Microsoft's, but never made a dent in the spreadsheet market. Microsoft controlled the platform and so their only real competitor was Lotus. Lotus even successfully sued Microsoft for infringing on their copyright, but ultimately lost because of Microsoft's marketing strategy. Future versions of Lotus exceeded Microsoft's offerings with Excel, but once they lost that momentum it became impossible to get it back.

That's just one example of Microsoft's business strategy. They never had the superior product, just superior marketing.

That’s what they tell you at the Linux church.

Microsoft didn't charge an OS tax like you said.

Microsoft didn't use its OS platform to run third-party companies out either.
No one was really using Windows 1.0 and 2.0. Excel was available for Windows 1.0 and even much longer before on DOS. Excel and the entire Office family have their origins in Multi-plan, another failure of Microsoft.

Windows became popular with version 3.0.
Lotus had time enough to create a decent version for that platform. instead they reused their DOS version with a kind of Windows GUI wrapper around.

The Lotus for Windows was just bad software. Microsoft filled the gap with Excel and never gave it back.

It has nothing to do with unethical business. And I never heard that a judge ordered a weird ruling due one of the parties is having a nice marketing strategy!!!!!!! Whahahaha.

I give up. You really don’t know about what you’re talking and you’re not prepared to learn something.

[The chrisman union]

They're both rubbish, go Linux!

...says Chrisman while using a MacBook.

[UNIverseVERSE]

I don't think that sentence means anything. However, I find install wizards actually a lot more useful than manually extracting, it saves a lot of time and reduces the likelihood of error.

Yes, but a proper package management tool is better still. Because it lets me say "Computer, go install foo", and it happens. Instead of needing to say "Computer, find me foo. Computer, download foo. Computer, run the installer for foo. Computer, go to the next stage of the installer for foo. Etc".

If your distro has a package manager and the software is in the repository, then great.
However, if you have to compile from source and chase loads of dependencies, then not so great.

Also with point (b), it's easy to run the software once installed, but what about actually finding it? Maybe it's not working properly, or you're trying to configure it differently. Linux software tends to be scattered all over the place. Windows is not exactly perfect on this either, with apps throwing half their files in system32 or the user's profile, but it's not quite as bad as Linux.

'user@hobytla$ locate foo'

Found it, and everything associated with it. Of course, nearly everything obeys the standard rules anyway: executable into /usr/bin/foo, manual into /usr/share/man, general shared files into /usr/share, user config into ~/.foorc, or ~/.foo/

It's almost always a damn sight more consistent, logically organised, and better managed on any vaguely modern GNU/Linux platform.

[Treznor]

That’s what they tell you at the Linux church.

I'll have to remember that one.

Microsoft didn't charge an OS tax like you said.

Of course not. Because that's exactly what I said.

Microsoft didn't use its OS platform to run third-party companies out either.

The government of the United States of America disagrees with you.

No one was really using Windows 1.0 and 2.0. Excel was available for Windows 1.0 and even much longer before on DOS. Excel and the entire Office family have their origins in Multi-plan, another failure of Microsoft.

Correct. Lotus 1-2-3 didn't lose its market share until later, when Windows really started taking off and Excel with it.

Windows became popular with version 3.0.

Also correct.

Lotus had time enough to create a decent version for that platform. instead they reused their DOS version with a kind of Windows GUI wrapper around.

Do you know what Windows was until NT? A GUI wrapper around DOS.

The Lotus for Windows was just bad software. Microsoft filled the gap with Excel and never gave it back.

Yeah, Microsoft had a history of doing that. They eventually lost an anti-trust case over it.

It has nothing to do with unethical business. And I never heard that a judge ordered a weird ruling due one of the parties is having a nice marketing strategy!!!!!!! Whahahaha.

The marketing strategy is separate to the judge's ruling. Microsoft was found guilty of infringing on Lotus' copyrights, which is why Bill Gates went on to famously say,

If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. ... The solution is patenting as much as we can. A future startup with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high. Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors.

Gates knew that the way to gain dominance was to exclude competition.

I give up. You really don’t know about what you’re talking and you’re not prepared to learn something.

Hello, Pot. I'm the Kettle. I understand that I'm black.