OS WARS MEGA THREAD (Now debating proprietary vs. open-source!)

[Xyon]

I disagree.

I see. Would you care to elaborate as to why?

 

[garyw]

I agree with Xyon. An operating system is just the most basic component of something the user customises to allow them to do what they want. The very strength in an OS is the ability for it to run a myriad of tools.

I'm more than willing to bet that any person who says 'I hate [name of OS]' is complaining more about a particular tool in that OS rather than the actual OS and these days, with tools like hypervisors becoming more mainstream the OS itself is becoming nothing more than an additional tool.

At work, I have a Windows XP laptop. On that laptop I have Orcales virtual box. Inside Virtual box I have Windows server 2003, Windows Vista and CentOS 5.4

Each one has a specific role, the XP machine is my main machine. The 2003 server is testing out some custom GPO templates, The Vista box is testing out a GPO settings and the CentOS box allows me to do file administration on storage arrays we own.

I couldn't do it from a single OS because each OS has a specific reason for needing to be used. Windows XP can't run active directory and I need to keep AD segregated from the main network, this is not a limitation of XP but a fact of both the operating system and what it is meant to do and network security.

The Windows Vista box is required to test out a Vista specific GPO, I can't deploy to XP because A. the XP box has all the email and day to day stuff I use, if I break it I'll have problems so it makes sense to use a VM and B. The GPO is specificially for Vista.

The CentOS box is required for NetApp filer administration. I can do SOME of this via SSH but with a CentOS box I've got better file manipulation controls and can use SSH keys so I don't have to muck about with passwords.

So, Each OS has it's own specific reason for being used. There are no favourites. They all work with me to help me do my job.

 

[Linguofreak]

I'm more than willing to bet that any person who says 'I hate [name of OS]' is complaining more about a particular tool in that OS rather than the actual OS

Well, they may also have a problem with the people that produce the OS more than any feature of the OS itself. A good number of anti-Windows zealots hate Windows because of Microsoft's business practices, even though recent releases of Windows are fairly stable. (Earlier releases did have plenty of problems that transcended any single tool).

That said, the reason I even visited this thread today was to vent about a particular *Linux* tool. The default settings for gnome-terminal, at least under Ubuntu, have quite a few keyboard shortcuts mapped. Maddeningly, many console apps also use these shortcuts. So I opened up hexedit last night and, not having used it heavily, wasn't familiar with all of its commands. I guessed wrong on something I was trying to get it to do and got "Unknown command, press F1 for help". So I press F1. Nothing. I tap it a few more times. Nothing. A few more times. Suddenly, about 10 gnome-terminal help windows pop up. :compbash:

 

[computerex]

lol. I wonder who first started the OS debate. It's silly really...Then again, oranges are better then apples

 

[Linguofreak]

Heathen! Everybody knows that apples are better than oranges!

 

[MJR]

I just say any OS system is the best depending on your personal preferences. I haven't ever noticed a substantial difference in performance and functionality. That is like saying you have two cars. One has an FM radio while the other has an XM. Who really is always going to use the XM? Not everyone. FM plays all the stations that you want and can fit your purpose unless you want a little something extra which is not as important. In this case it is the XM. See my point?

 

[Hielor]

I just say any OS system is the best depending on your personal preferences. I haven't ever noticed a substantial difference in performance and functionality. That is like saying you have two cars. One has an FM radio while the other has an XM. Who really is always going to use the XM? Not everyone. FM plays all the stations that you want and can fit your purpose unless you want a little something extra which is not as important. In this case it is the XM. See my point?

I think that's not the best analogy...XM has all the options of FM and more, so XM is pretty much strictly better.

 

[MJR]

I think that's not the best analogy...XM has all the options of FM and more, so XM is pretty much strictly better.

Well, yeah, but not everyone is going to drop dead and say, "Oh my god, XM Radio is 500 million times better than FM!." I know of people who had it and don't care for it. I was saying that that is the same concept with PCs.

 

[fireballs619]

I agree with the previous statements that the whole OS wars thing is pretty dumb. People fail to realize that what they do on the computer is different than what others do, and therefore different OSs are more efficient for them. That's what I look for in an OS, efficiency. I could care less what who supplies the OS, as long as it allows me to do what I want in a easy way.

Of course, efficiency is not all. I also like accessibility. I like to be able to manipulate files in the system without being blocked or precluded from doing so. Given these criteria, Windows 7 is the perfect OS for me. It doesn't have the restrictions that OSx can have, nor does it take the commitment that Linux requires. Of course, I am not going to say that those other OSs are bad because of their features (or lack thereof), they just don't fit what I want.

 

[Ghostrider]

OS wars are an extension of the '80s "my computer is better than yours". Anyone remembers Commodore/Speccy? It's just that humans are pack animals and they need to pack in with other individuals of the same frame of mind. You got them hooligans, them political extremists, them religious fanatics, them f4nb0is. The only reason OS wars haven't caused bloodshed (hitherto) is because it's a nerdfight!

 

[Enjo]

It's just that humans are pack animals and they need to pack in with other individuals of the same frame of mind.

Come on. It's not only this. You're neglecting the whole idea of Free Software this way. The software may be worse at times, I admit it, but you can fix it yourself instead of always paying somebody to do it. Ultimately we'd end up having to pay even for friendly advises if ideas behind Non Free Software and everything closed to a given group of individuals (lawyers, car mechanics, doctors) spread entirely.
My friend goes to car mechanics to get parts from them and to embarrass them about him not needing their overpriced help, and I doez and use Free Software.

Of course, you can go to library to read about law, medicine etc., but no other group than computer scientists and programmers share their valuable knowledge so passionately over the Internet (thus freely and instantly available), so you have both - information and source to combine them into something productive.

To sum up, it's not only about price, utility and quality, but about a whole philosophy of freedom. A bit utopian, but acts as a good counterweight to our marginally marketized world.

 

[Ghostrider]

Come on. It's not only this. You're neglecting the whole idea of Free Software this way.

FOSS exists for all OSs, so it's not tied into it. The biggest threat to FOSS doesn't come from proprietary OSs but from closed-down devices like the iPad. I don't use Windows because I like it (I'm still using XP and will not upgrade until I have good reasons to do that), but because the software I need to work do not exist on any other OS. The games I like do not exist on other OSs (some are available for Mac, but at a higher price). Emulation is OK when you're talking a hardware generation or two earlier, but for current generation stuff it's a big November Oscar.

A lot of stuff I use on my Windows machine is FOSS: firefox, thunderbird, winamp, vlc. Let's not even get into the emulator software. Anyway, the vast majority of OS f4nb0is don't mention programs, they're simply into the OS or (in the case of Apple f4nb0is) the fancy hardware that comes with it.

It's like Swiss Army Knife vs Leatherman. Whatever works for ya, dude.

 

[Enjo]

Just my final two cents in this battlefield thread for now: let's remember that many of the FOSS user apps and their libraries that we use on Windows have been built with MinGW or Cygwin which are ... something about ports of GNU Operating System's utilities and parts of the system itself

 

[eveningsky339]

I agree that OS wars are stupid.

Linux is better and free-- what's to fight about? :tiphat:

 

[Hielor]

I agree that OS wars are stupid.

Linux is better and free-- what's to fight about? :tiphat:

:facepalm:

The Force Unleashed 2 comes out a couple Tuesdays from now. I will be playing it on my PC which runs Windows 7.

Linux will be unable to run it.

I contend that in order for an OS to be "better" than another, its capabilities should be a strict superset. This is clearly not the case.

 

[eveningsky339]

:facepalm:

Not so fast now... I was making a funny.

--->:lol:

The Force Unleashed 2 comes out a couple Tuesdays from now. I will be playing it on my PC which runs Windows 7.

Linux will be unable to run it.

I contend that in order for an OS to be "better" than another, its capabilities should be a strict superset. This is clearly not the case.

It's nice that you are enjoying your games and all, and I agree that Linux can't run jack, even with Wine. Games don't particularly interest me so I'm all set in that department.

Which brings us back to apples and oranges. I am an apple-- I don't play games outside of PySol and that Yahtzee clone I found once. Oranges, who prefer games, better stick with Windows (and a decent virus scanner).

 

[Hielor]

Oranges, who prefer games, better stick with Windows (and a decent virus scanner).

You seem to be implying here that other OSes are magically immune to viruses, which isn't the case...

 

[garyw]

:facepalm:

The Force Unleashed 2 comes out a couple Tuesdays from now. I will be playing it on my PC which runs Windows 7.

Linux will be unable to run it.

I contend that in order for an OS to be "better" than another, its capabilities should be a strict superset. This is clearly not the case.

I don't understand that argument. There are many things that Linux can do that Windows cannot but it doesn't mean one is better than another. I run several linux servers because Windows can't handle the software, is a pain to create an auto configuration for and is quite awkward to lock down.

Doesn't mean I don't use windows but it does mean I use the strengths of both.

 

[Xyon]

I don't understand that argument. There are many things that Linux can do that Windows cannot but it doesn't mean one is better than another. I run several linux servers because Windows can't handle the software, is a pain to create an auto configuration for and is quite awkward to lock down.

Doesn't mean I don't use windows but it does mean I use the strengths of both.

That was, I believe, his point - Linux's capabilities are different to Windows', therefore it is not a strict superset, as he put it.

 

[eveningsky339]

I will not become a Linux fanboy troll.

I will not become a Linux fanboy troll.

I will not become a Linux fanboy troll.

I will not become a Linux fanboy troll.