Linux Versus Windows
What are the obvious differences? Well Windows is closed source and sold for a price, and Linux is open source, and free. If I didn't know anything else, I'd pick Linux...Or piracy (joking, Bill). Of course that's just the cover of the book, a distracting guise for the troubles in the vessel that is Linux. Of course there are so many variants of Linux (known as "flavors"), and a wide array of differences between versions of Windows (although there is that backwards compatiblity that lends some consistency) that I personally believe that it is impossible to peform a truely accurate assessment of the two side by side. So I'll choose Windows XP and Ubuntu Feisty, I'll mix probably mix in some Windows 2000, Vista, and some Ubunty Gusty as well.
First things first: Security.
Linux affords a great amount of security to the user, great file system control, great prevention from privledge escalation, so on and so forth. So, what's the problem? Well, taking Vista's "User Access Control" into account, as well as the SUDO commands that are tied into nearly everything in Linux, you can probably understand the following sceneiro.Humans are by genetics: lazy. We make simple passwords, and re-use them on different sites, logins, perhaps at work, and our bank. We also are impatient, we want to click something and have it done before we click it, we want dinner -- without ever having to go to the store. So if I asked you what you thought? So if I asked you what you thought? So if I asked you what you thought? Well, you get the point. It gets really, really old. Eventually you'll just skip over the annoyance that is: first, withdrawing from your patience; and: second, more work than it needs to be. That's why the User Access Control, and the consistent "Run as Root" or "SUDO" logins are rather ineffective -- people start to ignore the message and just type in the password / click "Allow". For this reason, these caution screens may make the system better if a robot was operating the machine, but since humans are involved, you must develop the security around human nature.
Considering my low usage of Vista, I'm already annoyed when UAC asks if I REALLY want to empty my recycle bin. If a hacker is going to go on my computer and take out the trash, what the hell do I care? It's not that I keep documents in my recycle bin for later restoration. I personally believe that the security that Linux affords can be matched by Windows with proper configuration. However perhaps without the same resolution that Linux. Now onto viruses. Windows has more, Linux has less. That's obvious. Reason? Well, if you're writing malicious code intented to spread, and it can only execute given certain vectors, why bother with anything but the most common? Windows is the most common operating system, and for that reason malicious users will write code just based on that. Another reason that Linux has less viruses than Windows lies simply in the fact that there isn't as many applications which support programming on a Linux machine. You can write a Windows virus with Visual Basic -- a simple language. You can't do the same with Linux, it must be in C or a lower-level language.
Next: Software Compatibility
WINE? "Wine Is Not an Emulator?" Please. This recursive ackroynm is a lie. It is an emulator, and a poor one at that. Why should I need to emulate a system that I'm presently using? I've seen people impressed by people who can get Adobe Photoshop to operate on their Linux PC...Impressed? On my computer I double click the icon! No compatibility modes to enter, no special DLL files to patch, no special installation methods. I just install it, and click the icon. Well, now comes the arguement that there are open-source versions of applications for this reason -- for example The GIMP, OpenOffice.org, and Firefox. Personally I use all of these applications on Windows, because as stated earlier, if you're only coding for Linux, then expect only a niche to follow. If you're coding for Windows, well you've got the whole world; in your hands. Programming as those developers did: with multiplatform support? Well that's even more of a reason for me to stick with Windows. Now I get the benefits that Windows affords me with the applications that were designed with Linux in mind.Next: Software Availability
Linux is well know for affording free software to work with their systems. Some of it is excellent (Firefox, OpenOffice), well much of it is poor. On Windows, I have several alternatives if I do not agree or enjoy how a particular application operates. On Linux, you're stuck with whatever Adept offers you. As an example, you can play games on Windows like Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto, On Linux; you can't. What is the alternative on Linux? A poorly created game titled "Race", or "Speed" or some other generic name that screams out "Wait for the quality!". The graphics remind me of my QBASIC programming days. Practically a mix between EGA and VGA graphics. To me, the applications that Linux can run are comparable to the conversation somebody with down-syndrome can hold.Next, my largest gripe: Hardware Compatibility
What does Linux support? Well, it supports a keyboard and mouse; thankfully. My first Linux install attempt was back in the 90's, around 1995 if I remember right. I had two discs from my Dad: Red Hat v4.0. I thought "Oh cool, something new to try!". Maybe if I stuck with it back then I would have no problem with it. But unlike Ubuntu, there was no "live version", it was solely "How do you want to destroy everything else for Linux?". Needless to say, the discs are still in a CD binder and were never completely installed. So my first full installation and attempt at learning/using Linux was with Ubuntu 7.10. I installed it onto my Gateway MX3215 laptop. I loved the visual themes and effects, but hated the fact that my wireless NIC wasn't supported. So, I went back to XP. As far as visual themes go, I want my operating system to be the "stage" for the "performers", I don't want the operating system to be the "stage". Next up I installed Ubuntu 8.x? onto a system that had a NVidia graphics accelerator in it. How well did it work -- it didn't. I can crank the themes up so the windows bounce, stick to the side of the screen, can be thrown onto other screens, etc. But: I was stuck at a maximum resolution of 1024x768. I didn't spend $125 for a graphics card to get the primative graphics afforded to me thru Linux.Linux: The Good vs. The Evil?
Well, it's open source. Which means if I don't like any of this, I'm free to write my own. Problem with this is simple: I'm a programmer and don't know how to write device drivers like this, I don't have the means nor the carnal knowledge of the device. So if even I can't get it to work, well what is a layman supposed to do? They would have even more issues with it.In Closing
Linux has potential to be a great competitor in the market, but without compensation to the authors of the program, I don't see it expanding the way Windows (and associated software) have. Currently Windows is, in my opinion, the best operating system available. Given a greater share of users to Linux, and more license choices for software by developers, I can see Linux surpassing Microsoft's operating systems in the next decade.EOF=1