Closed/Microsoft vs GNU/Linux Assessment

[Skara Brae]

Windows always crashes.

No system crash for me in several years on 3 machines, hardware failures not counted. You fail.

Pardon me, but here I just have to jump in.

Let me first say that I am no programmer or anything of that kind. I am only a computer user with a lot of experience in "using" computers. I have used almost all Windows versions on (let me count) 6 computers (desktops, laptops), and that does not include other people's Windows-based computers. And it is my experience (as, I repeat, "only" a computer user) that Microsoft Windows (insert any version) is the most unreliable thing that I have ever worked with in my entire life. OS X is way better, as is Linux (Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Linux Mint).

Every time again I go when someone in all honesty and seriousness says that Microsoft Windows is a good OS ("good" in many meanings).
Do they never have program crashes?
Do they never have system crashes or BSoD's?
Do they never lose time, because Windows does not let them do what they want?
Do they never get viruses or other malware?

The times I had those in OS X and in Linux I can count on one hand.

I have Windows Vista Home Premium on an Core i5-based computer and a Radeon HD 6870 of less than 1 year old (so, practically still brand new). It is the fastest hardware that I have ever had, but any other, older computer that I have boots faster than this computer. Can you explain this any other way than by agreeing that Windows is crap? (And no, it is not only Vista: I rather work with Vista than with Win 7, let alone Win 8 from what I see online).

/dev/urandom,
when was the last time you had problems with any Windows computer, and what was that problem?
I compare Windows with OS X (I have a "1st Gen" iMac G5) and with Linux (Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Linux Mint), and I can _only_ conclude that Windows is total crap (in many meanings). And I repeat that I say this not as a programmer or anything, but as a plain and simple computer user.

Windows, OS X and Linux are the 3 largest desktop OS'es, I think I may say. And of the three, Windows is the biggest rubbish that I have ever worked with (If it is not, then why have all the Windows versions given me so many problems, and that on different computers? It's not that I am too much of an idiot to work with Windows, is it? )

If it was not for the CorelDRAW's Graphics Suite, I would have gotten rid of MS Windows in 2004. (Hey, I should check out Wine.). Some day, I will dump Windows once and for all. I don't know when yet, but that day will come. I just know it...

Alright, now I am getting off my soap box.

[/dev/urandom]

Do they never have program crashes?
Do they never have system crashes or BSoD's?
Do they never lose time, because Windows does not let them do what they want?
Do they never get viruses or other malware?

None of them are related to Windows, except BSODs.
But don't think your holy Linux is unbreakable, does never crash, has no malware etc.
You do know about the several daemon exploits published regularly, right? There is no "stable and secure OS".

And Mint rarely does what I want it to either.

/dev/urandom,
when was the last time you had problems with any Windows computer, and what was that problem?

One or two months ago, a boot sequence error due to a malicious update process.
Again something that can happen with every OS I know.

and I can _only_ conclude that Windows is total crap (in many meanings). And I repeat that I say this not as a programmer or anything, but as a plain and simple computer user.

So is every OS in one or another way.

Windows, OS X and Linux are the 3 largest desktop OS'es

Don't compare them. They all have different audiences. Linux is not better, it is different.

If it is not, then why have all the Windows versions given me so many problems, and that on different computers? It's not that I am too much of an idiot to work with Windows, is it?

It is.
At work I have to work with a couple of Ubuntu servers. Don't think I have ever seen an upgrade that did not break several things. FUBAR. Good thing that servers don't need graphic card drivers, so the issues were less severe than they usually are. Given that the regular Mint is based upon Ubuntu, figure yourself what that means.
It's not that I am too much of an idiot to work with Ubuntu, is it?

[zeke]

I'm often disappointed (I almost wrote surprised, but I'm not) by the lack of perspective I see in "discussions" like this one. Skara Brae: WIndows is a product that has been used successfully by millions for many years. Do you really think your experience with it is remotely typical? Likewise, OP Orang_Gila: Your claim to have put in over 9 months @ 10 hrs/day to maintain a couple of home computers is almost physically impossible for anyone with an actual life. If that experience was typical, nobody, and I mean nobody, would be using Linux. I use Linux on my home computers because there are things about it that I like, and things about Microsoft and Windows that I don't like, but seriously, please try to see something between black and white.

[Orang_Gila]

I admit I didn't have the patience to read the whole op,...

Likewise, OP Orang_Gila: Your claim to have put in over 9 months @ 10 hrs/day to maintain a couple of home computers is almost physically impossible for anyone with an actual life.

You are twisting my words. If you had properly read my report, you would have seen that I did not state that it took me "9 months @ 10 hrs/day" to "maintain" our computers.

From that report:
"This equated in my circumstance to roughly 2771 hours of diagnostics and learning to move from the world of Closed/Microsoft to GNU/Linux. In other words, roughly 10 hours/day, every day for roughly 9.1 months."

"I chose Debian as my foundation after trying some 26 distributions (Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian, CentOS, "Libre", etc...)"

"If I hit the wall again and find myself spending more that 2.5 hours/week for 2 PC - diagnostics, learning & maintenance, then the experiment ends."

I also never stated that it was a continous block of time, thus the word "equated".

From that report:
"I started this adventure around the beginning of August 2010 and my current estimates used in this assessment are from August 1, 2010 to May 12, 2012."

Currently I am keeping a very detailed record of my time (note: I am NOT including forum discussions like this in that data).

In the last 27 days I have wasted:

• 14.4 hours.....KDE-PIM issues (kmail, korgac, akonadi)
• 26.9 hours.....Researching alternative PIM solutions (eg. evolution, osmo, tkreminder, claws-mail, icedove, iceowl, etc..) and then migrating our data out of KDE into the mozilla environment (Icedove, Iceowl) which has the beauty of being cross platform. This allows me to use similar software on other family members' computers that are microsoft based as well.
• 20.0 hours.....Other issues

This data represents 15.9 hours/week, but of course I'm assuming that things will run a little more smoothly (maybe) now that I've bailed out of KDE's PIM packages altogether. If nothing major comes up by Dec 17 then the shreadsheet calculation will probably work out out to an average around 2 hours/week - only time will tell...

[dalcde]

In the last 27 days I have wasted:

• 14.4 hours.....KDE-PIM issues (kmail, korgac, akonadi)
• 26.9 hours.....Researching alternative PIM solutions (eg. evolution, osmo, tkreminder, claws-mail, icedove, iceowl, etc..) and then migrating our data out of KDE into the mozilla environment (Icedove, Iceowl) which has the beauty of being cross platform. This allows me to use similar software on other family members' computers that are microsoft based as well.
• 20.0 hours.....Other issues

This data represents 15.9 hours/week, but of course I'm assuming that things will run a little more smoothly (maybe) now that I've bailed out of KDE's PIM packages altogether. If nothing major comes up by Dec 17 then the shreadsheet calculation will probably work out out to an average around 2 hours/week - only time will tell...

It seems like you do a lot of things (configuration) on your system. Given that average users don't do that (they just use what comes with the distro), we don't have such a problem. Of course I'm not discouraging you from these research and configuration - it's just that you shouldn't expect that much of work for every user. (By the way, we do that in Windows too, right?)

[/dev/urandom]

Given that average users don't do that (they just use what comes with the distro), we don't have such a problem.

Interesting. In other threads people try to tell me "the average Linux user" is tech-savvy and spends a lot of time configuring things, and now you say most Linux users use Linux like they use Windows?

I score again.

[dalcde]

Interesting. In other threads people try to tell me "the average Linux user" is tech-savvy and spends a lot of time configuring things, and now you say most Linux users use Linux like they use Windows?

I score again.

This post is about Windows users converting to Linux, so the "average" user should include Windows one as well (i.e. the average to-be-Window converter would probably not do all those configuring)

[/dev/urandom]

Why should he convert then?

[Grez]

Just to put my penny in the pot here, I bought a new computer in August 2008 after a MoBo failure on my previous machine. I took out the HDD and lobbed it into an external case to connect it to my new, dual core Vista machine.

I had very very bad experiences simply firing up the new machine, and after what amounted to about 6 hours of fiddling about trying to get drivers for a Samsung Laser Printer (none available), a Medion FB Scanner (ditto), a serial A5 tablet (ditto) as well as multiple updates and lots of reboots, I was on the verge of taking the thing back to the shop.

I persevered. In the end, I managed to get a desktop stable enough for me to try to copy over my old files off my old HDD. Suffice to say that even as an administrator, the new OS wouldn't play ball and allow me access to the files without an awfully long-winded process. I searched online to find an answer to automate the process, and during the time it was re-assigning the file permissions, the OS crashed and on rebooting i couldn't get access to the files at all, let alone reassign the permissions. So I was well and truly stuck.

Enter Ubuntu Hardy Heron (8.04 LTS). Booted off the CD. Worked live. Rescued the files. Detected and drove the hardware rendered obsolete by Vista. And so began an interest in this new OS which eventually took me to the point of installing it (dual boot) and then finding out that in November, I never booted into Windows once, because I liked the way that the new OS worked and I felt like I was finally in control of my computer - I was running it not having it running me.

Recently, I've found the newer Versions of Ubuntu more and more unreliable (new computer now as well!) and that's how I got onto Mint 13. Would I go back to Windows? No. I can't stand the nagging, the antimalware updates, the reboots, the fact that you have to pay for upgrades to software you've bought, the fact that you don't know if a download is riddled with viruses or not and the fact that you have to pay for it, too. Using my wife's Windows 7 netbook occasionally brings it all back, I'm afraid.

GNU/Linux isn't perfect by any means. However, it does the job I want in the way I want it. And I'm probably one of these awful types that uses the GUI too much, who doesn't write, script and compile and all the rest.

I like Mint 13 Cinnamon and it's much preferable to me from the current offerings from Microsoft.

[zeke]

"This equated in my circumstance to roughly 2771 hours of diagnostics and learning to move from the world of Closed/Microsoft to GNU/Linux. In other words, roughly 10 hours/day, every day for roughly 9.1 months."

I also never stated that it was a continous block of time, thus the word "equated".

This is against my better judgement but I can't resist replying:
The word "equated" means "is the same amount as". I don't care if you spent 10hrs/day for 9.1 months, 5 hrs/day for 18.2 months, or 24 hrs/day for 3.8 months. Those all "equate to" the amount of time you claim to have spent on this little research project you're describing. I don't care what you call your activities, whether it's "putting together and maintaining", "learning to move from the world of Closed/Microsoft to GNU/Linux", or "tripping the light fantastic". Only someone w/ terminal OCD and a ginormous amount of time on their hands would put that much time into doing - whatever it is that you did (my apologies if I'm inadvertently "twisting" your words). More importantly, for the vast majority of new users your experience is simply not remotely indicative of the time and effort it should take.

[The_Riskbreaker]

Many other users have stated this, but it's first and foremost a preference thing. And secondly, it's a matter of what you can and can't do in any given OS. I've been doing techsupport for ten plus years, all on Windows, and i've seen my share of problems. Part of that is because i'm in "Tech Support" and we see all the issue. But my desktop has had issues too. I would never perform an "upgrade" to Windows. I always do clean installs, same with Ubuntu/Linux. It avoids any problems, as my personal upgrades from 2000 to XP, and on another machine going Vista to 7 haven't been without their hitches.

My desktop dual boots between Ubuntu and Windows (should change it to Mint soon). There are some things I cannot do in Linux. For example, I cannot get Wine to run the game Shivers 2: Harvest of Souls. Windows will run it, under 95 compatibility. But Wine can't run it under any setting or combo thereof. Similarly, I don't use Microsoft Office because Libre does everything I need and saves me $200 or so. I can't see paying for software when there 's a free alternative. Benefits exist on both sides.

As for the original post, I wonder if someone hasn't already done this. His "experiment" is clearly not controlled or under any set of guidelines so it's unreliable. On that note I recall reading a study that Google did to test whether or not S.M.A.R.T. values were reliable. They tested hard drives over a period of time, watching failures. Well, has someone ran Windows and Linux on indentical systems for a period of time to catalogue their results? I mean controlled, highly measured testing, not opinions, but true science fact. If I had identical machines i'd do it. Make a note of the machine's baseline stats and do fresh installs on both, take notes from there. It'll give the OP something to think about. But it will never end the debate. If Linux was allowed as a choice on major computers (i.e. Best Buy, HP, etc...) when you buy, and more people started using it, the support would grow, and software/hardware people would take note, making Linux versions, and thus stability would increase. But with Microsuck on the throne, we'll always be the minority.

Not trying to feed the wolves, but it hink we'll agree there are benefits to both. I await the day when Microsoft lowers the costs of their OS's. Until Windows 7 is $100 or less, i'll stick with old reliable XP and Ubuntu/Mint.

[/dev/urandom]

Amazon.com lists Windows 7 for $100 or less.

[zeke]

Amazon.com lists Windows 7 for $100 or less.

The $100 or less options are for the upgrade version or the system builder version, which can't be transfered to another pc. The version with the fewest strings attached is $170.

[/dev/urandom]

Why would you want to transfer it to another PC? Are you buying so many PCs a year?

[zeke]

Why would you want to transfer it to another PC? Are you buying so many PCs a year?

I typically upgrade the motherboards in my pcs every couple of years or so. I am assuming that counts as "another pc" since it did with xp.

[animaguy]

All I can say is I tried Linux Mint KDE and didn't like it.

LM Gnome .... meh

LM Xfce .... GREAT!

Ubuntu 12.04 Gnome .... meh

Xubuntu 12.04 .... good but not great

Ubuntu Studio .... interesting

PCLinuxOS .... meh

Knoppix .... cool graphics

CentOS 6 for a web server .... me likey likey

Back to LM 13 w/Cinnamon .... I can see why people like it, but meh for me

LM 13 Xfce .... I am going to be here for a long while until something dramatic changes

[Lumikki]

Many other users have stated this, but it's first and foremost a preference thing. And secondly, it's a matter of what you can and can't do in any given OS.

In my opinion this says it mostly.

It's all about what person wants from OS. If anyone tries using something the way it's not design, they will allways get issues. How the OS should be used may vary a lot, meaning you can't really use all OS's same ways, because they aren't same.

I have used Windows most of my life and only later started using Linux. I did this because Windows design slowly moved the direction what did not fit on my needs. I don't think any OS is better than other, it's more about what you self like and value.

As for stability, as far I have seen in my life, current days OS stability in desktop use is based many times on software and hardware compability. Also all OS's has they own strong and weak points. There is no perfect solution or OS what is best for everyone. We need to choose the OS based our needs and liking. Different OS's offers different things.