SwiftlyTilting: usability, reusability

Friday, February 18, 2005

More proof Linux isn’t all that great

Earlier this month I commented how I wasn’t all that impressed with Linux. It would freeze the computer whenever I loaded the media player, and boot times and general performance was much worse than an old copy of Windows 98.

Well apparently theres even more reason to be skeptical about Linux, as it’s been shown to be less secure than Windows! Finally someone actually tested it, and Linux lost. I have always said that if Linux was as popular as Windows that it would have as many viruses and people exploiting security holes, but since it’s so rarely used, not many malicious hackers and virus makers bother with Linux.

10 Comments Leave Comment | Comment RSS | TrackBack URL

Linux has been out for well over 10 years, you think this is the first time someone compared it to windows side by side?

That article is misleading. Search slashdot.org for that article to see why.

Linux takes quite a bit of configuring to get it working efficiently on your system. It’s not an OS for the faint of heart or uninitiated. The learning curve is steep, but once you make it over the hump it becomes more and more apparant that linux is far more flexible, scalable, and powerful than windows. I’ve been a windows user for years and have been using linux for a little over a month now every day as my primary OS, and the more I learn to weild linux as it’s meant to be weilded, the more disgusted I am with the utter ineffeciency and inflexibility of windows.

Linux isn’t the kind of OS you can play with for an hour a day for a week and expect to get a proper understanding or grasp of what it’s all about; it requires commitment.

I’m sure there’s a simple reason why the media player you used didn’t work for you. It’s a bit of a shock jumping from windows to linux not having everything work the way it’s supposed to on the first try, but effort is rewarded.

As far as boot speed goes, when you install linux the newbie way, as I have and you did, (that is, not compiling the kernal yourself), it uses a kernal that encompasses drivers for all modern hardware, and lots of things not everyone is going to need. When you compile yourself specifically for your hardware and personal needs, I promise you booting up would be MUCH faster.

I like you frizz, you seem very knowledgeable and usually present yourself well, but I’m a little disappointed at this, not because I like linux and you don’t, but because you’re being very dismissive. It really seems like you based your opinion of the whole OS on a couple hours of usage, and that’s just not fair.

Linux DOES require MUCH more effort and initiative than windows, and some people like that. The feeling of getting closer to the point where I can do everything in linux that I can do in windows (with the exception of some games, but that’s changing quickly ;)) is exciting.

I feel strongly about the linux philosophy, that software and the OS should be free. It seems criminal, after someone has spent $1500 on hardware, to charge them hundreds of dollars just to be able to use it with a set of shitty default programs.

And I also want to make it clear that I’m not using linux and doing all this to get something equivalent to what I had in windows simply to save money. Like I would spend that much money on an OS anyway ;). I use linux because I feel it is a superior operating system, and millions of others feel the same way. There is a reason, frizzantik.

fm from bl

Comment by futuramike — Thursday, March 3, 2005 @ 9:44 pm

On a previous machine I ran linux for a year or two so I’ve had more than just a day to play with it, and it just never really seemed worth the effort for most things.

I’m really just poking a little fun at linux geeks trying to get a rise out of them though ;)

Comment by swiftlytilting — Monday, March 7, 2005 @ 4:59 pm

I think it’s a bit unfair also to say that merely b/c windows is the standard, that’s why it gets nailed with viruses, spyware, and various other hack jobs.

If you wanna compare numbers and say 10000 windows systems were exploited today b/c of a security flaw, yet only 3 linux systems were. Yeah that idea of windows being so wide spread seems to fit.

But put it on a percentage. How many windows machines are there, and what percent of those machines get compromised. Then do the same for Linux distros, Macintosh’s, even Solaris system. I promise you, even if you added the percentages of the “other” systems, it still wouldn’t come close to windows.

Comment by DD — Saturday, March 19, 2005 @ 4:29 pm

Even if windows machines get compromised more by percentage points it doesn’t really mean anything. I suspect there is a exponential effect as the more popular a software becomes, the more likely it is to be hacked and viriied

Comment by swiftlytilting — Tuesday, March 22, 2005 @ 5:08 am


Comment by futuramike — Saturday, March 26, 2005 @ 1:57 pm

hehe.. doesnt really say much about the results, though it certainly causes the study to take a credibility hit.. I guess we’ll just have to trust all those Linux fans when they tell us their OS is better, cause they’re not biased either ;)

Comment by swiftlytilting — Sunday, March 27, 2005 @ 7:36 am

not better for everyone, but betwe for me for sure.

Comment by futuramike — Monday, March 28, 2005 @ 9:02 pm

I belive about this: this is a joke, to see why you only need to run window$ and in less than 3 minutes you got a virus!!!! and if you go to the web in seconds be spywered from many many stupid companies who try to scan your sensible data, and in the last you cannot see any of these things comented anyware on your reports or in any of the maliciuos an uncompleted “researchs”, nobody told you about the inner spying from many malicious free screen savers or many software who is included by default on the operating system, you can prove this by installing new fresh window$ on one machine and run ad-aware and then you can see my point.
If you can’t run Linux with real performance is because you don’t know anything about hardware, you say you run a 98 version of window$, is because you have an old machine and you only use it for terminal sesions, but Linux is a server not a client software and cannot be compared with an a system like that. bu.

That’s the joke you are a novice!!!!!!!!! your skill is low low low … low knoledge level and your comments cannot be seriuosly taken. jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja
good joking!!!!!

It is demostrated about the compared products Linux vs Window$ that Micro$oft paid for that

Comment by jajajaja — Saturday, May 14, 2005 @ 9:57 pm

I forgot to comment this: there are many hardware flaws in the hardware side who affects the Linux software, includes the mal function or the definitive not run or automtic reboot of the machine, most of that is a bios problem, the architectural construction of any UNIX or UNIX like system is to access the hardware directly (this thing was ported and the idea copied and is called DirectX on windows machines, remember that the Mr. Gates learn on a PDP-11, a unix-like machine, he likes take 3rd parties ideas and promotes like if was their owns) since the begining, this means if there is a bug on a hardware causes the slow down or other problems that affect the performance, you cannot see this with windows because microsoft or the maker of the machine give you a “driver”, this piece of sotware arranges the problems by skipping and emulating portions of your defective hardware to make it run and transparent error free to the user (you), but how many drivers give you the same manufacturer to run with Linux to arrange that?

But like you say, all of that is not the problem, the thing is not to take side, then you maybe can see the monopolist vision surronding the world and see the danger of the dependency of one and only company who puts a small piece of software to spy you (only understand this if you make the thing I suggested earlier) just for won more money and if you really knows your prefered system then I ask you: Do you just see the other archives undocumented who makes an index and is a database about you and your data? if not I suggest you to make your own “research” to see this and if you cannot find anything my last words are “sorry you need more knoledge than the I can teach you in this comment but do not take my comment like nothing, beware study and some day you can understand and see.”

Thanks for your time.

Comment by jajajaja — Saturday, May 14, 2005 @ 10:38 pm

LOL, the reason why Linux is slower than Windows 98 is because I have an “old system”? I guess Linux is only faster than Windows on news systems? Anyways I have a brand new computer with an Epia M10000 motherboard. It is slow compared to the top of the line puters, but there’s no need for more power in a machine that is only used for web surfing and media playing.

You said “Linux is a server not a client software and cannot be compared with an a system like that.” Thats fine, but Linux fans ought to stop touting it as a desktop replacement, because it had a long way to go before it is more usable than Windows. I’d rather support the open source community, but I value performance and usability more.

Comment by swiftlytilting — Sunday, May 15, 2005 @ 4:17 pm

Leave a Comment

Validate XHTML | Word Press