hi i once did a pole on linux and windows, its still on my website at www.sanchit.chaorg.com
The opinion was that more votes fav. linux than windows, though personally i love windows thats another thing...

but still many people made many valid point to justify either of them, click my sig and then click linuxvswindows, if you wanna check what they said.

cyanide.

If I had a choice b/w a SiS™ accelerator and a home in Hell, I''d sell the accelerator and go home.


Greetz from the "CYANIDE"
http://www.sanchit.8m.com/

That in society is what we would call a stereo type, stereo typing, if you didn''t know, is also considered prejudism... arrogant huh? How Ironic, and yet so hypocritical...

Linux is better then windows for servers... more power. You can control the more in depth aspects of a linux server much easier then you could with any windows server. I know, I have tried... infact I still do.

Windows, great for ease of use, less power, but that helps 98% of the world population... the percentage that barely knows how to turn a computer on.

I could see giving a newbie a linux box going over very well... that does not imply though that any one is better then the other. They are both specialized as far as I am concerned in their own areas. Just because linux is only used by a climbing 2% does not make it any worse then windows, depends really on your use.

But to the point. It takes a lot of nerve to call a specific group of people smug and/or arrogant. A group of people whom have a right to their proper opinions. If they think linux is better, well god help them they can say it all they want. They can even reason why they like it so much better then windows. And by the reason that most people who use linux still in fact have a windows partition shows to me that they are not being naive about it. Most linux gurus know that Windows still has some benifits, like the vast array of software. What is arrogant and smug are those people that choose to classify individuals with opinions into a distinct, and prejudged group.

LIE: Most smug, arrogant people you will ever meet are those who hate micrsoft and love linux.

LIE: People if linux was better more than %2 of the world would use it.

FACT: Check your nearest reality bud.

linux is hands down a better os that windows.

it is much more difficult to use than the friendly and familiar windows platform which is why most users (who range from 4 years old to 110) use a simple os.

from a developer''s standpoint you want to control and know everything that''s going on. this way you can really tweak your programs to do what you want them to, and under windows this is sometimes impossible.

it isn''t an elitest attitude that many linux / unix developers have, at least not in the sense that they are elitest towards other developers. we are not in a competition here, and real programmers and engineers know that we need eachother''s expertise to even get through a single day of real development.

i think the most difficult thing people face, especially those involved in technology is that they marry themselves to their code and ideas. this is aweful practice. just know that sometimes you will come up with terrible ideas and people will make comments about it. this isn''t personal, it''s about information and take all the info you can get.

ps, use linux, learn it and live it. windows is not a developers platform, it''s made for morons who don''t know what they''re doing. (like you)

ok, just kidding on the last one, but you should get the idea.

have fun,

-byt

quote:
linux is hands down a better os that windows.

that''s the funniest thing I''ve ever heard.

quote:
ps, use linux, learn it and live it. windows is not a developers platform, it''s made for morons who don''t know what they''re doing. (like you)

quite the opposite actually. windows is the ideal developers platform with drivers, and not having to write a new driver for every different piece of hardware is actually a good thing. you must be joking.


JoeMont001@programmer.net www.polarisoft.n3.net

so that 2% figure was made up then

ive used both a bit these are what i believe are the good points

win2000
- a lot more software
- things are a lot more standardised
- u can use anybody elses computer without having reorientate yourself
- bugger all use of the command prompt
- some very good apps
- most hardware drivers exist

linux
- very stable (in 5 years use it has never crashed, win2000 has about 15x in the last 10months though its a huge improvement on win98)
- u can change practically everything about it.
- very nice UI pretty/configurable
- performance is usually a bit better ( it doesnt require such as powerful hardware as win2000)
- Gimp

http://members.xoom.com/myBollux

quote: Original post by zedzeek

linux
- Gimp

http://members.xoom.com/myBollux

Gimp is available for windows as well.

true but its a bit buggy and doesnt have as many features as the linux one. still its the best graphics program for windows apart from photoshop

http://members.xoom.com/myBollux

I''ve used both windows and linux. I agree that they both have there faults but in the end I use Windows. I''m probably gonna get flamed for that but...
On my Win2k system in the last six months I''ve only had it crash about 20 times. Each crash was directly linked to a repeatable problem in a buggy piece of software! i.e. the programmer never read the documentation and wasn''t doing things properly!
My Win2k system runs constantly (No reboots in 2 wks) and is used for a lot of development work wich can chew up a system and force a reboot.
Most complaints about the windows os are missdirected. person a buys software progam q from vendor xyz, the program promply crashes the os upon instalation. Because everyone keeps saying that window is so buggy and crashes all the time they of course naturally blame the windows os and not the program they just installed. I''ve been told many times that that could NEVER happen on linux because is such a well written os. Errr... It''s happened to me under linux!
From all this you might think that I don''t like linux. On the contrary, I like many of the features of linux much better. In particular everything thats related to neworking (use and programming)
In short most of the complaints I hear about Windows would be better directed twoard the various software developers and not Microsoft.
... I can''t beleve I just defended microsoft but unfortunatly I felt it neccissary to point out a couple of truths that nobody else seamed inclined to.

linux and SDL. Good clean OpenGL fun.

AAAAAAH one of the good old Linux versus Windows flame wars :-)

I use both. I do most of my development on Linux and later
port to windows (that is easier then the other way around).

Some comments on other posts in this thread:

- It is not true that in windows you don''t need a device driver for every new hardware that appears. You NEED always a device driver for your hardware. In windows as in Linux. Only the newest drivers are always written for Windows because it has a greater user base.

- Microsoft hasn''t the best user interface. The most used, yes.

- The Windows standard is not that standard. Just look at DirectX. Each new version the developers need to learn a new API.

- KDE sucks comparing with gnome, gnome sucks comparing with KDE2 :-)

- User unfriendliness of Linux : Linux is a unix clone. Unix (and thereby it''s principles) is about 30 years old. Unix has never been designed to be a userfriendly system and will never be. Unix is designed as a system for doing high performance work for computer engineers.

Unix has a strict philosophy that is build very deep in the system and needs the user to understand that philosophy before becoming a poweruser.
Windows has no philosophy. It is a rimram of different philosophys coming from different (and competing) departements or stolen from other company''s. Just look at COM. As a COM developer I still feel it is one of the strongest points of using windows (not UI, for me the UI of windows sucks) and the base of COM is very nice. But all the shit they build upon it is really horrible (just look at the ActiveX API and you know what I mean or the DirectX API). Microsoft is constantly competing with their own developer community whereby unix has always been very open.

Why is this kind of discussion starting in an OpenGL forum ? Especially we need to understand the importance of openness of standards. OpenGL was developed by Silicon Graphics (still a major unix player), Microsoft is doing it''s best to destroy OpenGL and push it''s DirectX (with Direct3D). It is thanks to games like Quake2 and Quake3 and all the other licensed version of these games that we still can play with OpenGL on our Windows machines. If you don''t agree with this start programming in DirectX (and Direct3D). I do both (OpenGL and Direct3D) and I prefer much OpenGL because the design is typically unix : the designers has choosen for a certain philosophy and keep to that philosophy.

To the people that think that keeping a windows2000 box uptime for three months is great :
My first Linux box has run for THREE YEARS continue (P90 with 16MB RAM). Only shut down because I got married and needed to move to my own house.

Yes I hate Microsoft, yes I love Linux (and Unix) but I''m not arrogant about it and if my post turns out arrogant please forgive me. As a programmer I''m just very pragmatic (who isn''t) and unix gives me the results I''m expecting and Microsoft OS''s force me to spend too much of my time in solving problems that I''m expecting that the company that sells an OS (at that high price) has solved for me.

Greetings

Jan Van Sweevelt

Belgium