Does anyone like to use Linux over the Microsoft XP or System 7/8. I have used at least 4 virtual Linux's and like the fact that you do not have to run with Virus or Spam software. Unix based system?

I would tend to beleive that the non-windows systems are not necessarily more secure or less vulnerable. Since Windows desktops dominate the market, itself only makes sense from a malicious users perspective to develop malware targeting Windows systems. The other reason, again in my opinion, why Windows is faced with these issues is that the Windows OS is installed with too much of a footprint. I.e., unecessary programs, services, etc... Anyone can basically load Windows, install apps, etc... For a Linux distro, the average non technical person would have more difficulty. It has been getting better over the years. If Linux continues to become popular, I would suspect that these operating systems will be more targeted.

I like the various Linux distros available.

I use both, and home and work, but my main systems are all Linux. In point of fact, Linux and Unix (including OS-X) are both more secure than Windows because of how they are designed. That isn't to say that they have no vulnerabilities, but in point of fact it is MUCH more difficult for an attacker to get root access to Linux/Unix than Windows systems. This is a design and implementation issue, not one of popularity per se.

Does anyone like to use Linux over the Microsoft XP or System 7/8.

Everyone that I know who has ever tried to use Linux for any substantial amount of time (usually compelled to do so because of job, or just out of curiosity) and who is the least bit competent with computers (e.g. not mortally scared of a terminal window), they have all expressed strong preferrence for Linux (and I've never heard of someone familiar with Linux who preferred Windows). I'm no exception. One of the reasons for me is just the sheer difference I feel when I boot into Windows after having spent some time using Linux, I feel the weight of the Windows system crushing me:

  • it takes forever to boot up, and everything I do seems to take forever.
  • it constantly nags you for updates which are always tedious to install (next, next, I agree, next, next,... restart now!) (as opposed to almost always automatic and most of time reboot-free, under Linux).
  • the lack of integration (and inter-operability) of software packages makes it so that every time you have a little task to do, like converting video formats or reading a particular type of file, you have to either dig in dark corners of the internet for freeware tools for that particular job, or pull out your wallet for some big professional software that you don't really need. Either way, you end up with a system that is bloated with a huge amount of stupid little unreliable, and possibly virus-laced, programs.
  • it has the messiest possible system file structure with tons of annoying redirections and linked folders. This makes it really hard and annoying to customize your system well.
  • it lacks a proper, native, feature-rich command line interface. Tasks that are so simple and quick to do in Linux (e.g. $ find . | grep keyword) are much more complicated and time-consuming in Windows, unless you install cygwin with a massive package set.
  • and as a programmer, of course, Windows is a horrible development environment from a point of view of getting, using, linking to, and distributing any external libraries.

The above list is somewhat biased towards the kinds of tasks that I tend to do, e.g., programming, dealing with data files and logs, customizing systems, and scripting, and so on. And you might also guess that I'm not terribly competent at dealing with a Windows system for these tasks, as I'm sure it is not as bad as it is for me when you know better ways to do such "advanced" tasks with a Windows system.

Many studies say that the costs of running and maintaining a corporate or academic network of user computers (e.g. all the computers for your employees, or all the computers for a university department) under a Linux-only environment (Linux for servers and users) is significantly lower than doing the same with a Windows-only environment. We're talking half the cost or lower, and sometimes much lower. Many studies on this subject are very biased (either by Microsoft or Linux service providers like IBM or Novell), so you have to be careful about the credibility of what you read. I spent some time in Helsinki, which is, to some extent, the Mecca of Linux, and the university there had more Linux computers in the student computer labs than Windows computers, and clearly, people (technically-savvy or not) preferred the Linux computers.

Ask any system administrator, it is very likely that they will tell you they much prefer working with Linux / Unix / Solaris computers or servers. I mean, if they are familiar with such systems (some only work in Windows, of course). When you setup a Windows computer to incorporate it into a corporate or academic environment, there is a long shopping-list of things to do to setup virus-protection, network securities, server accesses (VPNs and such), special firewalls, etc. etc. With a Linux node, its much simpler and safer. Truth be told, one sys-admin can manage a much larger amount of Linux nodes in a network than he can manage Windows nodes, just due to how easier and quicker it is to deal with.

From a daily-user's point-of-view, for simple stuff like surfing the web, chatting, writing on forums, watching videos and listening to music, Linux does all of this better than Windows does, period. I often use the example of KDE (Plasma Desktop) which is so customizable that you can literally make an exact replica of a Windows desktop (any version), or if you prefer, you can also make an exact replica of almost any version of Mac OSes. The point is, Linux subsumes both Windows and Mac, you don't have to choose between the "serious" Windows and the "artsy-fartsy" Mac (like in those famous ads), you can just pick a Linux distro and customize it to your needs and to your liking. And after all, you don't have to be an expert user to appreciate the light-weightness of Linux, the superior software integration, and the ease of installation and massive availability of good and mostly reliable open-source software.

As a final note (after this crazy long rant!), most of my computers are dual-boot Windows / Kubuntu. I have two reasons to keep Windows on them: I'm an engineer, so there are specialized, commercial software that just aren't available on Linux (but many of them are beginning to offer Linux versions), like CAD, FEA/FEM, simulators, and some control software; and I like to keep my code compilable under Windows systems so I sometimes have to boot into Windows just to check that it is still so (it usually is, beyond a few trivial issues).

In point of fact, Linux and Unix (including OS-X) are both more secure than Windows because of how they are designed. That isn't to say that they have no vulnerabilities, but in point of fact it is MUCH more difficult for an attacker to get root access to Linux/Unix than Windows systems. This is a design and implementation issue, not one of popularity per se.

I agree with rubberman. I'm no expert on security or hacking of any kind, but you can clearly feel the inherent security in Linux (not without flaws, I'm sure) just from the way access rights are so deeply embedded in the system design. Windows can't compare, Windows is basically a massive patch-work with many layers each with their own vulnerabilities (I mean, my knowledge of Windows is minimal, but I could probably muster up some pretty nasty malware in a snap, not that it would last very long against virus-protection software, but I'm just saying, in Windows you find security flaws without even having to look for them, that's just how obvious they tend to be).

Comments
Guru of rant!

I also agree with rubberman. I like linux very much. As far as I am concerned, the only substantial reasons I use Windows are games and word-processing (sorry, but openoffice really just doesn't cut it). Also, there is the fact that ods file are not well supported outside openoffice so I can't really send it to anyone.

But the main reason I really like linux is its versatility. In Linux it is easy for the moderatly technical user to costumize just about everything. There are many distributions, with strong developers community. In windows based system, every idiotic 2nd rate program is most likely to either 1) cost some $ or 2) contains commercials, malware, spyware, whatnot. In Linux its most likely free, and opensourced.
For programming, work, media etc., I definately use a linux box. Windows is for games, and sometimes, word-processing.

One of the best features of linux IMHO is the ability to pretty much do everything remotely, and from command-line. It makes life so much easier as an administrator. You don't have to worry about importing graphics (through vnc for example) and have everything take ages.
The rich terminal scripting, the ability to seamlessly interwine perl, python (and many other more serious programming languages) in the normal functionality of Linux makes it great. If it weren't for games I'd probably use Linux as host and Windows as virtualbox.

-FH

I have to agree with rubberman and mike_2000-17 for most of the same reasons. I run a couple of different Linux systems depending on what I am using it on. For servers on the web I run CentOS and for my laptops and desktops I run Fedora 14. I do run Windows 7 on one desktop that is primarlly for gaming. When I need Windows 7 and Windows Server 2003 I run them on the Linux systems inside Virtual Box by Oracle for applications that are not available for the Linux OS (MS SQL Server, Games, Dataconversion utilities.). Linux provides the firewall and security to keep the Windows systems from being attacked.

One other comment is that Microsoft does have a larger market share in the United States but if you look at systems world wide and what our own government uses on their systems you will find Linux in one flavor or another because it is secure.

I am not a Linux user, but i use it only when need to run some scripts,
or when windows crah and need to get into those corrupted directories.
but is good thing to have a copy near you. :-)

Its not one or the other. Use the right tool for the right job.

I use linux for all my servers.
I use linus to run asterisk for the VOIP system.
I use linux desktop distro for all my python coding.
I use windows as my normal workplace desktop for mail and productivity crap.

A final note on this subject from me - an anecdote from about 10 years ago. I was Principal Engineer at a major semiconductor equipment manufacturer, designing and building manufacturing software systems for the semiconductor industry. One of our major customers was Intel. A group of their senior manufacturing engineers were visiting our home office in Massachusetts and at one of our meetings they were asking us to port our Unix MES software to Windows (it would run on Windows for testing purposes, but we never certified it on Windows for production systems for a variety of reasons). They were asking because they wanted their manufacturing software systems to run on Intel gear, and all of the Unix systems we supported were from other manufacturers (DEC, Sun, HP). When I brought up that some of the reasons we didn't support production systems on Windows was that our testing had shown that it 1) didn't perform adequately, and 2) was unreliable for a 6-sigma installation. Their answer? "Well, Windows is plenty fast and reliable, as long as you leave the GUI off of it." ROFLMAO!!!

To add my 2 cents: I have been using Linux desktop at work and at home for about 4 years now. At work we switched to Fedora desktop and server after not receiving usable support from Microsoft for Windows SBS when we had problems (support was paid for). We had some Linux experience already and a moving all the production was not that hard. At home I also installed Ubuntu on 3 laptops and even my wife has been using it for a couple of years and never complained. For a year or so I have been completelly freed from Windows. The last applications I moved to Linux were the ones I use for music making at home: Wavelab was replaced by Audacity and Cakewalk was replaced by Rosegarden. For long time I have been using Gimp, Inkscape, Open/LibreOffice, Eclipse, VirtualBox, Kontact, K3B, VLC, Kdenlive and tons of other opensource software (that costs zero). Very rarely I have to hack arround the system since most things work out of the box nicely (Wifi, Bluetooth, LAN, sound, camera etc.).

Who are experienced in both will allways use linux as his first and favourite OS because of too much reasons. Like I do.

I like linux a little more then Windows, you dont have to have anti virus software but you can get to be a 100 % sure that not even the littlest python virus makes its way onto your computer. clamav isnt a bad one....

Linux is my OS of choice for reasons already outlined by Mike, Rubberman and a few others. (So I won't repeat them!).

The only place I use Windows nowadays is at work. And I don't have any choice over that.
But I do use a lot of free and/or open-source software packages on my work PC. Mainly because I am already familiar with them and can be productive using them.

For a number of years, all of my home computers have been running various flavours of Gnu/Linux. My wife and kids have all been using it and they love it too! After a lot of problems with malware on their XP system, I even got my parents to switch to Linux rather than buying a new PC with a newer version of Windows. I can't count the amount of times I got phone calls about problems with that PC when it had XP on it. If I wasn't up there removing viruses, or fixing registry problems, I was reformatting and re-installing Windows and drivers etc. I really don't know what they were doing to that poor machine!

After trying Ubuntu 10.04, they decided they liked it and stuck with it. So they saved their money and got full use of their computer again, with the added bonus of no more malware infections. Since getting them started with Ubuntu and teaching my mum and my sister some basic sys-admin skills using the GUI (I didn't want to scare them off with the command-line!), I rarely get phone calls about computer problems any more. And when I do, they're usually simple things that can be answered over the phone. E.g. "What program should I install if I want to {blah blah blah}?" or "How do I {blah blah blah}?"

As a result, fewer phone calls about serious problems means fewer unscheduled trips to my parents house after work to fix problems. Giving me more time to spend with my own family. ( WIN! XD )

BTW: My parents are probably the least tech savvy people on the planet and they find Ubuntu easy to use and maintain. They've even done distribution upgrades with no help from me. They're currently running 11.10 and looking forward to upgrading to 12.04!

To be honest I was expecting an angry or confused phone call from them this time last year, when they upgraded to Ubuntu 11.04. Which was when the Unity interface became the default. But surprisingly they took it in their stride.. Hat's off to the wrinklies! They certainly took it better than I did. They actually like Unity! Yes, sadly I'm one of the many long-time Gnome 2 users/luddites/malcontents who dislike both Gnome 3 and Unity! Heh heh!

Anyway, Linux might not be for everybody. But for my family and I, it's GNU/Linux and free software all the way... Or at least, as far as humanely possible! Heh heh!

I hate *nix -- its just too complicated for me. I like the ease with which I can accomplish things in Windows. For example, yesterday I decided to install Ubuntu because there was a problem I wanted to test out on *nix. That all went well, until I tried to access the internet. NOT. I have wireless connection and Ubuntu didn't have the drivers for wireless, all it recognized was wired connection. So I booted back to Windows and did google search for the problem. Lots of problems came up but no solutions. Fortunately, a couple weeks ago I created an image of my computer (Windows control panel option) and saved it onto an external hard drive. So today I deleted the Ubuntu partition and had Windows restore the computer image -- about 2 hours work for the computer.

Edited 4 Years Ago by Ancient Dragon

Well AD, I don't disagree that WiFi cruft is a big issue with Linux. With Ubuntu and related systems it is often because they require that you install proprietary drivers and firmware (required for most WiFi gear) manually, so they don't work "out-of-the-box"... Pisses me off! Anyway, if you need to get WiFi running on Linux, and your system doesn't work with default drivers, then visit www.linuxwireless.org. They have drivers, or links to drivers, and firmware for just about any non-supported gear, as well as comprehensive instructions to get them installed and running.

Linux is actually more sensetive to viruses, a simple fork bomb would cause the system to run out of memory and reboot will then be essential

Linux is actually more sensetive to viruses, a simple fork bomb would cause the system to run out of memory and reboot will then be essential

Really? More sensetive to viruses? Even a simple fork bomb?

One would think that a rather simple issue to resolve, wouldn't one?

Now if only protecting Windows against viruses was quite that easy; or that Google-able.

An, in case you thought fork bombs were limited to Unix or Linux only, I have 5 characters for you:

%0|%0 

Put that in a batch file, run it and see how much fun you have...

Even better, do a search for "Windows Fork Bomb" on you frienldy local Google, and realise that while we certainly may attempt to mitigate the effects of ignorance (much like I'm doing here), we currently know of no cure other than curiousity and education...

The reason for windows being attacked more is because of the large amount of people using windows, and i wonder why all these people use windows more than linux? The reward for writing a virus for unix/linux is very little, and for your little fork bomb code you set up there, actually i did have lots of fun laughing for half an hour at it, i ran it and it did not do much harm as i have something called a SSD and a lot of ram, there is also something called task manager, (which i doubt linux has) and a key combination known as Ctrl+C I have actually tried linux, first ubuntu, and i hated it. So i switched to Oracle Enterprise Linux, and it was FILLED with bugs, but at least it was useable.

Edited 4 Years Ago by HTMLperson5

I would have happily included some virus script for unix there, but that is probably against the rules on Daniweb

Edited 4 Years Ago by HTMLperson5

I have been using Linux (Debian testing/unstable branch) exclusively since 2005.
Of course I love Linux far better than WIndows.

I have actually tried linux, first ubuntu, and i hated it.

And that, of course, makes you an authoritative source on the merits of the system...

Admit it, you have not actually read any of the links I added to my initial post, had you?

You, sir, are a Troll and a Microsoft Flack.

Ok, lets keep this an orderly conversation. Not everyone has to like the same thing...Also

You, sir, are a Troll and a Microsoft Flack.

What does this do for you? I am not at all taking side with Microsoft, I simply find it strange that you
are so obsessed with linux! There is a reason for Linux being free, don't you understand? Why do all these buisnesses use Windows and not linux? Windows is reasonably priced (unlike mac/apple) and it is quite reliable (unlike Linux)

The reason for windows being attacked more is because of the large amount of people using windows, and i wonder why all these people use windows more than linux?

Many more people use windows, that is a fact, but the reason is not the quality. The reason is Microsoft is a company that works forf profit (which is OK, since all companies exist for profit) and to maximize profit they do heavy marketing and selling and not always playing fair game here. They are even able to blackmail government agencies who are big buyers. So when a lot of people have windows at work they are used to it and buy it also for home. MS even manages to get many computer manufacturers to preinstall windows on their machines so many people just buy windows without even realizing there is a choice (same goes for ms office very often).

Linux on the other hand is not marketed that way (at least not as the desktop OS). There is some marketing there from various packagers (Ubuntu, Fedora...) but it hard to beat MS and it's agressive approach. As far as servers go Linux does not have to be marketed much since most sysadmins know whatto chose.

Here's a response, admittidly I am fond of some Linux, such as Redhat and Suse, but things like KDE really make me confused, using Linux as a desktop is not a good idea at all, so what is the point of even having a gui? Why couldn't it be just that traditional text only base?

there is also something called task manager, (which i doubt linux has) and a key combination known as Ctrl+C

Linux does have a task manager. Many different GUI-based task managers exist, depending on the distro. And, a series of command-line tools exist to do task management work, like ps (list processes), kill (kill a process), and top (monitor processes), and because you can do this from the command-line you can still do it even if the desktop environment has crashed (which is really rare), something windows cannot do.

And the CTRL-C or CTRL-Z to kill a command-line application (or console app) is actually part of a larger set of key-combinations that date back to Unix. In windows command prompt, it only provides a few of them, like CTRL-C. Under Linux, you have access to many more (more than I know), like CTRL-C (send kill signal to the process), CTRL-Z (halt the process right away), CTRL-D (detach the output of the program from the current terminal / console, i.e., run the app in the background), etc. etc.

Linux has nothing to envy windows on this front. In fact, for all sys-admin and all "having control on your computer" tasks, Linux leaves Windows in the dust, mostly thanks to the robust GNU tools with their long-standing and stable Unix background.

There is a reason for Linux being free, don't you understand?

Free and open-source software has a big advantage over commercial one, it is the only scalable model for software development that can produce robust and resilient software products. It is certainly not "free" (as in gratis) because it is a sub-standard product (as with most freeware in Windows). It is "free" (as in gratis) because it must be "free" (as in freedom) in order to produce high-quality products that could not be produced otherwise. We have seen with Mac OSX and latest developments in Windows (like Powershell) that Apple and MS are the ones in trouble trying to keep up with the robustness and features that come out of open-source software and OSes. They are the ones with the sub-standard products trying to fight and up-hill battle for quality, one that they will never win because their development model is flawed.

Why do all these buisnesses use Windows and not linux?

First of all, many more businesses use Linux than you can imagine. By and large, the market for servers is dominated by Linux and other Unix-based operating system (Unix and Solaris). The market for embedded systems (e.g. from smart-phones to dish-washing machines, to robotics) is also dominated by Linux (e.g. Android) or Unix-like operating systems (e.g. iOS, or QNX). But it is true that for desktop / laptop computers, Windows dominates far and wide, at home and in businesses (but they are very often all connected in a Linux-based server for the intranet).

Mostly, people use Microsoft products in part because of unwillingness to change and vast ad campaigns, but also because of a number of "vendor lock-in" techniques that MS has been using since forever. These range from making file formats MS-only, to pre-bundling Windows on most computers (and making it very difficult to get your money back if you throw away the Windows installation), to creating new "platforms" or "frameworks" that are only "portable" in theory (not in practice), all the way to blackmailing software and hardware vendors with the threat of frivolous patent-enfringement lawsuits if they don't adopt the MS products (e.g. some time ago, after popular demand, Dell started to sell laptops pre-loaded with Ubuntu only (or another Ubuntu flavor of your choice), and MS moved in to snip that initiative in the bud, and it didn't last very long). In fact, if you read some of the studies that microsoft have commissioned in the past (survey, market impact studies, etc.), it is pretty clear from the way things are discussed and the factors that are being considered, that the "quality" of their products is not really a concern to them, it is not a significant aspect of their strategy at all, because increasing quality is expensive and doesn't lead to much profit, they focus on market control, vendor lock-in and advertisement to make money.

Windows is reasonably priced (unlike mac/apple) and it is quite reliable (unlike Linux)

MS products are very expensive, especially when you get into business-world products. Windows is relatively cheap (or at least, the cost is hidden) for personal use. In businesses, yearly licenses are very expensive, and every new application you need piles up on the cost. Not to mention that the cost of managing the license systems (which are very complicated in mid to large business) is a significant cost (in employee time). Linux, on the other hand, is free.

As for reliability, the average up-time of a Windows-based web-server is less than 30 days, while the average up-time of a Linux-based web-server is close to a year. It is not uncommon for a Linux server to run for years, uninterrupted (even including full system upgrades which don't require a reboot on some server versions of Linux). For desktop computers, if you always get the latest hardware and latest distros, there will be small quirks here and there (like problems with wireless, or having to manually install some proprietary drivers, or small bugs), but the rate at which these things get fixed is really quick. And these are mostly distro issues, mostly with the desktop environment, and hardware drivers for too recent hardware. The core of the GNU/Linux system is rock solid. And as rubberman said earlier in this thread, you just can't get 6-sigma reliability on any Windows environment, but you can get that under Linux (btw, put simply, "6-sigma reliability" means that there is no more than a 1 in a billion chance of failure for a particular operation).

But things like KDE really make me confused, using Linux as a desktop is not a good idea at all, so what is the point of even having a gui?

KDE is actually really awesome, much better than either Mac or Windows desktop environments. Why have a GUI in Linux? Why not! Linux is awesome for many things, including the ordinary things like surfing the web, watching movies, writing text, etc., which are all things that are more pleasant to do in a GUI environment. Linux, and KDE in particular, can do (and does) all this better than Windows or Mac, why should it step aside and remain command-line only when it has so much to offer for the average GUI-only users.

Why couldn't it be just that traditional text only base?

Now, you actually just sound like a whinning and distressed Microsoft executive.... Oh Why!!! Why couldn't Linux remain text-only!!!

Comments
Agree with every statement here

this argument has gone on for years! (and all the above sums it up
I use both but cannot use win 7 on an old computer while I can use a small version of linux on a very small old portabmle eeepc.
Thats enough for and from me!
M

many more businesses use Linux than you can imagine

I was hoping you would take into account:

Microsoft Access
Microsodt infopath
Microsoft Word
Microsoft Excel
Microsoft Powerpoint
Microsoft Publisher
Microsoft OneNote
Microsoft Outlook
Microsoft Sharepoint

But nope, you didn't realise that buisnesses which use these are using Windows!

KDE is actually really awesome, much better than either Mac or Windows desktop environments

Listen, Mac is even more expensive and there is a reason, Linux/Unix is nothing compared to Mac OR Windows!
Now here is my explanation Mac was from the start the most easy computer to use! And even though it is let down by its Unix base, the gui makes it all worth it, and for Windows, admit it; Windows is what you want to buy, not Linux

MS products are very expensive, especially when you get into business-world products

Since there are such things as torrent websites, I have the full versions of all MS Office products for free!

Windows is also capable of programming, when I was learning Python the book said it was:
"Recommended to install Linux, it really helps! All the examples in this..."
****facepalm****

Free and open-source software has a big advantage over commercial one

You don't get it! WHY is it free? Imagine someone distributes lets say the newest one, Windows 8 for free; That really does not make sense, as it IS more reliable too, make sense does it?

As for reliability, the average up-time of a Windows-based web-server is less than 30 days, while the average up-time of a Linux-based web-server is close to a year.

Now arent those some stats, you see my profile picture? You know what that is? Hm? Hm!?
That is something called a "Kernal Panic"!
Not very helpful is it?

Now, you actually just sound like a whinning and distressed Microsoft executive.... Oh Why!!! Why couldn't Linux remain text-only!!!

And you sound like a poor Linux admin not much to do...."Meh, windoz iz n0t dat g00d u no! 1t 1s v3ry r0bbish11!!!!!1!!!! l00k @ deese stats 1 h8ve meed up! linix is vewy betta!"
Yeah, I said I wanted to keep this an orderly conversation, but I guess you dont get it.
Linux functionality is improved without the GUI which slows it down.

This article has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.