Windows vs Linux [It's own thread]

I am selectively quoting here, as not all needs response.

I agree that there are uses for Linux and Unix today, moreso Unix. The stability of the machine is good on relatively low RAM usage and CPU usage, and the customability for any given purpose is simple. The text segments in Unix really become a part of what is now the internal software for modern OS'. I also agree that the intelligence of the user would have to be slightly higher, and granted they would perhaps have to know how a computer works... I could go on about all of the advantages but I am sure you know what I know and probably a little more.

Today we're facing a much larger problem than this, as people can go an entire day and not realize how anything they use, works. People have forgotten that internal workings exist it seems, rather to them it's magic. Actually this brings back to a comment I made earlier if I may arrogantly quote myself:

Which I believe is your topic of discussion here.


I recently purchased a laptop for my senior year, it came with Vista. I have been using various Linux/Unix since Windows 95, although I had a stint with XP. It seems this new version of Windows has locked you completely out of your own computer, it's like your own hardware is being held hostage. Your interpretation of a media center is right, coming with HP Media Center, a remote control...why? I remember looking at Webpages in 'Lynx' as a strapping young lad and opening a book to remember what the command line is. These functions have been lost; however should all the graphic rendering capabilities be lost? I think you do agree, you do agree it is good VMS usage. If you could just be allowed to access it without the other atleast 80% of garbage. I don't mind looking in a book, and I only need the computer for limited functions. It's also a significantly well programmed video system with a strong potential GUI...if you could only truly customize that GUI more than the color of the windows...

However the broadening of the leading Operating Systems into an all purpose OS...rather than giving true specificities that are to the desire of the user (Like Unix does) seems to be a non-ending trend. And similar trends appear to be occuring in nearly all facets of modern progress. These trends require us to make bigger, faster, CPU's. More condensed, smaller, hard drives.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well it would be irresponsible business practice if they didn't.

Just because you dont like a brand name does not mean that their products are bad.

Its evident in your line of reasoning, and arguments that your judgment is clouded by an irrational distrust of successfull corporations. That you have little to no concept of how business is required to work

Linux has its place and so does Vista.

So let keep the derogatory remarks to your self and keep this thread as a technical discussion...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The problem is when Vista changes places...it doesn't change. When Unix changes its place...it changes significantly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You will have to explain that a little.. What changes. Is change good, should we follow the apple way and force people to but all new software every time the OS is updated.. Legacy is very important and is part of windows success.

 

It was the main discussion of Vkothii and My post in discussing Unix systems and origins vs. Windows.

 

It's evident to you, I would imagine.
Your judgement seems to be clouded by an irrational distrust of successful operating systems. That you have little to no prospect of understanding (how they work, or why they're successful).

But don't keep it all to yourself - let's see how much of an idiot you can make yourself look.

 

Dude, MS make $44Bn a year. Red Hat less than three hundred million USD.

So, how do you measure success? How do you define operating system?

All we get from you is allegory, not a single fact or definition. You shout 'Linux' but don't state which distribution. You seem to think that the massed efforts of disparate developers stand against MS, without realising that in reality, those peope are competing with each other, not MS!

Now, a challenge to you, post a fact, back it up, and stand by it. If you can't post a single fact to back up your arguments, please, shut up.

 

Dude, MS make $44Bn a year. Red Hat less than three hundred million USD.

So, how do you measure success? How do you define operating system?

All we get from you is allegory, not a single fact or definition. You shout 'Linux' but don't state which distribution. You seem to think that the massed efforts of disparate developers stand against MS, without realising that in reality, those peope are competing with each other, not MS!

Now, a challenge to you, post a fact, back it up, and stand by it. If you can't post a single fact to back up your arguments, please, shut up.

 

No, not at all, is that what I think; it's what you think I think.

How successful is Microsoft? Very. But will it stay there with what it's trying to foist on the world? I prefer an OS that I don't have to worry about using on a public network - and I'm connected to a router that runs a linux kernel, which connects me to the wireless IR link on the roof which the receiver of is connected to another device, probably an ethernet switch, also linux driven; probably the connection goes through quite a few servers and routers that don't run NT. But probably the provider fields a few NT servers with MS apps on them.
What do you think an OS is? Or a kernel? I don't use RedHat btw.

 

You should be concerned about any OS on public network. There have been serious security flaws in the Linux kernel, so it is by no means invulnerable to attack. As has been mentioned before, those buffer overflows are always lurking in the background, awaiting exploitation.

 

Yeah, but somehow it still feels safer - for my peace of mind as well.

 

Most major banks run Windows servers and they have a lot more to lose then you.

You may feel safer, but its just your perception not reality..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So how many banks let their employees surf the net on the office desktops, you reckon?

 

How do you think the branches connect to their servers, via the Internet.

A branch will have a windows sever as a gateway and a list of allowed sites, anything else is blocked for obvious reasons and some reasons as we want our workers to work, not socialize, watch porn, or download media.

Banks dont use open source systems for the simple reason that they are open source. It is much easier to find an exploit if you have access to the source code. What if a code savy employ recompiles the OS on the branch server, not gona happen with Windows

MS guards its source code for this very reason, and a breach in source security is seen as major event for this very reason. MS has worked long and hard to gain the trust of these financial institutions.