Why Linux is better than Windows...Really!

You can still have mostly the same amount of control in Windows, if you ever used Power Shell, cmd, and/or batch files. Just that it's more common to use GUI applications on Windows. Same can be said for Linux for a lot of settings, though some still prefer using the terminal instead.

 

Yes the fundamentals are not very different indeed, but the kind of power of Linux is to be able to uninstall the GUI from Shell reinstall the drivers from there and then reinstall a GUI or two which I did when running in problems with my Radeon Drivers in Debian, all without needing to format the computer.

Windows has a lot of hard-coded workaround to fix problems, so there is a limit to what you can achieve, but since GUI setting are nothing more than eye candy to cmd instructions in most cases you could do the same, but Linux is more flexible. The strength of Windows for me is more about the standardization and widespread hardware/software support/

 

I have to assume the Really! in the title of this thread is pure sarcasm. See the response I got to a question I posted in the SD Forum Silicondust • View topic - Viewing TV - Ubuntu 12.04.2
In windows it took about 15 minutes to get up and running (and recording) including scan for channels time, After 2 + hours I am finally able to view OTA in Ubuntu (recording YEAH right ....)

 

Yes it is probably sarcasm, because for all the techies complaints about windows there is strength in standardization, while the cost of Linux power is that you need to transform into a Shell rat.

It also took me 3 hours to figure out why my Ubuntu 12.4 64Bits installation was crashing, to discover incompatibility with my graphic Card, then to try Debian and spend another hour typing in the shell to get it working. I install Windows seven and getting the drivers from Ati took 15 minutes and everything was up and running. Getting Flash to partially work in Linux Firefox also too me at 1 hour, so I like Linux until I have to fix stuff, I guess people like Linux more because it gives them more power and not because they get more utility out of it.

So yep, Sarcasm is well deserved, there is a hipster side of this debate, I have to admit it.

I am not saying that Linux users are hipsters, but the power that Linux promise does make you feel more cool and powerful, while you can get the same performance in windows with the benefit of easier use from standardization. Linux strength is being free.

 

The key to Linux is getting hardware that is open-source and Linux compatible. If you want to run a TV tuner in Linux, you probably should have gone with the pcHDTV HD-5500. I personally only buy Linux compatible hardware, and I rarely have to install drivers.

In this blog, Meph1st0 says he didn't have to anything at all to get the pcHDTV HD-5500 card working.

Most complaints I see with Linux, are people buying Windows hardware, and then expecting Linux to magically run it. Nobody expects Windows to run Mac or Linux-only hardware. It's such a double standard. Linux runs all of it's own stuff, plus a whole bunch of Windows stuff, so in the end, Linux is the better OS.

For example, Linux will mount Windows file systems, but Windows will not mount Linux file systems. Linux will read and write Windows network shares, but Windows will not read and write Linux network shares. Linux will play many Windows games, but Windows will not play any Linux games. The games must be ported to Windows. I could go on. . . .

Once again, if you want to run Linux, make sure you buy hardware that is well supported in Linux. Good luck trying to get Windows to run ANY hardware that is not suppoted in Windows.

I run well supported Linux hardware, and I rarely have to download any drivers. There are only two times in the last four years I have downloaded drivers. One time, I bought a new HP printer that had just come out, and my version of Linux was three years old, so of course the driver wasn't included with the kernel. The other time was laptop this laptop I bought six months ago, and it was meant to be a "Windows Only" machine. Turned out Windows didn't run some Linux software that I needed for my business, so I crossed my fingers and installed Linux. The wireless driver had issues. I didn't get mad at Linux, since I hadn't check Linux compatibility on any of the hardware. I downloaded the driver source, and compiled from scratch. In the end it works, which I see as a bonus, not a headache. Here Linux is running Windows hardware, and it isn't even expected too!!! Good luck getting Windows to be that cooperative.

 

You haven't worked in a bank.

 

That reminds me: any of those businesses still using a lot of COBOL? Thinking about picking that up either this summer or next.

 

LOL.

My friend, there is more hardware designed to work with both Windows and OS X than Linux that the only proper response to your statement is, "so what?"
If there's some obscure or proprietary hardware item out there that doesn't work on Windows, there's at least 50 that do the same thing that will.

The proper statement should read, "if you can't get a specific hardware to work with Linux, well, you're SOL. So if you want to run Linux, make sure you buy hardware that is well supported in Linux."

And that's why Linux on the desktop (note: not server) will remain sub 1% of the installed base of desktop OSs. Likely will always be this way.

I use Linux because I can do some things much more readily and actually better than in either OS X or Windows(Like what? Nunnayobidness ). OS X and iOS to me is like the Fischer Price of OSs. I can still get things down with it. But so can a 3 year old (I've seen it and was... oddly not surprised). Windows is mature and can pretty much do it all. But Linux is for the thinking man/woman. It could be easy to use. But it's strength is its flexibility for those who know how to exploit it.

Banks. LOL. I'm serious. Hey, it's a good OS. But there are so few who still know it that they command billable hours that set top shelf lawyers to a level of envy that makes them question their career path. Unless you're upper management in the bank collecting a bonus every year for playing with OPM.

 

Actually Linux has to be designed to be designed to be compatible with IBM-pc standard.

Unless I am running something particular Linux not having the brain-dead proof level of Windows compatibility is a big let down. Now that being said, I hate Windows8

 

Linux is NOT Windows

That is all.

/thread