1. We have moved from vBulletin to XenForo and you are viewing the site in the middle of the move. Though the functional aspect of everything is working fine, we are still working on other changes including the new design on Xenforo.
    Dismiss Notice

10 reasons that make LINUX a better OS..

Discussion in 'Linux' started by vishal sharma, Jul 26, 2004.

  1. vishal sharma

    vishal sharma New Member

    by- vishal sharma

    1.Security - Linux is Open Source Software, while Windows is not. The simplest benefits of Open Source Code to demonstrate are increased security, reliability and functionality; because users of Open Source are readily able to identify and correct problems with the programs and to submit their own enhancements for incorporation into the program. Closed Source systems enjoy none of those benefits.

    2.Scalability - Systems implemented under Linux can be cloned limitless times without paying additional software licensing fees - With Windows, you pay for each installation/workstation/server/cpu.

    3.Power - Linux is made with the Unix design philosophy, which dictates that system tools are small and highly specialized. The result is an incredibly powerful and reliable system, limited in capability only by the user's imagination and ability to integrate the Unix utilities. The Windows philosophy is to create unwieldy swiss army knives, limited in capability by how many features the user purchased on their particular knife. Diminished reliability is arguably a side effect of increased complexity. Thus with Windows, the case is often that you have tools that ALMOST do what you want them to, if they didn't crash.

    4.Reliability - The architecture of Linux is superior to Windows because critical operation system functions are implemented in such a way that buggy programs can't cause the computer to become unstable and crash. In fairness, though not quite as robust as Linux, Windows 2000 and Windows XP are much improved over Windows 9x and Windows Millenium Edition.

    5.Advanced Capabilities - In addition to the system utility tools from the Unix world, Linux usually comes with the Apache Webserver, an email server, router/firewall capabilities and SQL databases. These are extras costing up to thousands of dollars on Windows. There IS free software to do these jobs on Windows, but it has mostly been adapted from Linux and loses some functionality when ported to Windows.

    6.Compatibility - Linux is POSIX Compliant which means that applications developed for Linux can be operated on other POSIX compliant Unix derivatives with a minimum of reworking.

    7.Support - For persons not familiar with the Open Source Community, the quality of free technical support on the internet may come as a shock. Sometimes knowing enough to ask the right questions can be a problem, but overall the best and the brightest are there to assist you at no charge when you run into problems that can't be solved by reading the documentation included with Linux. With Windows or other commercial software, your manufacturer support is only free for a limited time and is often of little value anyways.

    8.Not Single Source Software - Linux is distributed by several companies, giving consumers to pick and choose the flavor that best suits their needs. Windows is the product of a single company, Microsoft Corporation. Windows users have no choice but to accept what Microsoft offers.

    9.Rate of Advancement - Linux has and will continue to advance at a rate impossible for a close development project such as Microsoft Windows to sustain. A few factors driving this rate of progress are (in no particular order): the number of active developers; quantity and quality of feedback from the field; short development cycle from development team to the end user; absence of corporate "meddling" in the design process; independently developed open source subsystems frequently incorporated into Linux, giving it quantum advances in a short time.

    10.Cost - That Linux is FREE deserves honorable mention and a bit of explanation. You can package and sell Linux for money. The competing Linux distributions all provide slightly different feature sets beyond the core system, including canned e-commerce solutions, printed manuals and phone support options. There is no rule that says you can't make money distributing Linux. For those who choose to download and install free distributions from the Internet, Linux is truely free. Some cynics have proclaimed, "Sure Linux is free now, but the Linux People will start charging for it once it catches on!". That statment is completely false. No single person or organization controls Linux, so that will never happen. In the unlikely case that Linus Torvalds (the author of Linux) adds some proprietary code and proclaims that all future releases will be $99.99USD, someone will simply take the latest "free" version and possibly rename it to Spin-UX. Then all the volunteer developers and contributors will jump on that bandwagon. Spin-UX will diverge from its Linux roots, over time becoming better supported and more advanced, rendering its ancestor obsolete, except possibly for purposes specifically addressed by that hypothetical proprietary added code. Furthermore Linux is covered by the Gnu Public License, stating that it and all derivative works must be distributed with the source code. This makes it extremely unlikely that anyone will wield monopolistic power in the Linux Sector.

    more later....
  2. alok

    alok New Member

    Hain buddy,
    your Article is very very nice,but i am sorry i am follower of Windows.
    i know one thing only the Computer User need easy,simple and good interface for working.
    and that interface is provided by Windows only.
    second, Linux s/w are not common as windows.
    third, Intallation is much easier in windows.
    fourth, Crash recovery in linux is worst
    fifth, Display properties once set in Linux can't be changed,as you can change easily in windows.

    soory buddy,pls don't mind i like to have Healthy discussion,and something in this reply hurt you i am really very sorry.
  3. vishal sharma

    vishal sharma New Member

    its perfectly all right i understand...
    as a matter of fact i too used to admire microsoft for all they have doen for us..
    but once you work with linux it very hard to go back to windows
    as far as the GUI is concerned x-windows,gnome are only a couple of GUI avilable..
    it is fast and free....
    and just for the sake of records there is only 1 virus ever recorder named "Attacker".
    which was only aa test virus.
    and last but not least...."MONEY CAN'T REPLACE HARD WORK"....
  4. alok

    alok New Member

    basically i didn't like the gui provided by Linux,Basically Linux may be Programmer Paradise but not User Paradise.

    and One Most Important Thing "Microsoft has Spend Million and Billion of Dollar For making Windows from Some Very Billiant Programmer of World" and i think that not true for Linux
  5. vishal sharma

    vishal sharma New Member

    well alok microsoft has spend millions $ not in making but copying others ideas....
    so i think spending money to take over some body else's idea is waisting it....
  6. alok

    alok New Member

    hain what r u saying vishal.
    may be money is bigest force than driving the world.and how do u say that microsoft copy other's idea,do you have any case that support that.

    waiting for reply
  7. vishal sharma

    vishal sharma New Member

    written by Anonymous
    Location: Seattle, WA
    Occupation: Lab IT

    What hasn't Microsoft stolen is a better question. Seriously! History keeps showing a pattern of MS using other people's hardwork; claiming they invited it, then settling out of court ten years later for pennies on the dollar. Why people believe anything this company says is amazing. Sure I use thier products. But people believe this company almost like the zealost for the macs. In fact, MS supporters defend MS just as intensely. MS steals, lies, cheats and everybody defends them. They ruin peoples lives, drag them through court and then pay them off years later while admitting nothing. Their software is rippled with security issues and thier renewal/upgrade prices are outragious. IT and tech support people promote their crappy product for job security. What a crazy world this is.

  8. libervisco

    libervisco New Member

    That's what i believe too.

    What many people may think was Microsofts invention was actually nothing but taken (stolen or aquisitioned) and extended. That was the M$'s strategy always! That seems to be their main moto since they do it all the time.

    The truth is that all of the software technology's developed in the begining (the 70's and 80's) were developed on university's. People at university's, students and scientists are therefore the ones that should be thanked for the outcoming information age and not Microsoft.

    At the very beginning, Bill Gates actually took the existing programming language in order to create BASIC. And that's where it all started. He made a deal to create first programs with BASIC that will run on that Atari machine (if i am not wrong).
    So, actually, there is nothing we can thank Bill Gate$ for except taking the existing, improving it a bit (extending) and feeding the hungry market with it.
    MS was just the first to take advantage of the "hungry market" and lead the business properly in order to gain succes. However, their technology is rooted on someone elses work.

  9. shabbir

    shabbir Administrator Staff Member

    I dont think there is anything wrong in copying the concept and add to it anythng. If we look at Linux it has the GUI which is copy of Windows.

    If we look at Java its OO like C++ with advancement.

    But what this 2 points suggest if we can copy something and make better than the source there is no harm in copying, though there is something like one is better than other in some respect.

    So this point suggest that we must not thank any one accept those who though that cpu / processor can be created. because what we are doing is using it for everything.

    Shabbir Bhimani
  10. libervisco

    libervisco New Member

    I agree with you shabbir.

    I posted this because i wanted to outline the fact that it is not true what many think that without Microsoft there would be not information age giving all the credit to them and not mentioning those who started it all. History cannot be changed and MS did made it's contribution, but these facts cannot be dismissed. It could very well happen under somebody elses hat, or maybe in the way of the open source/free software movement. I only say that Microsoft is often given too much credit.

    Copying can be justified in certain manners, but i belive that MS did crossed the line many times.

  11. shabbir

    shabbir Administrator Staff Member

    May be true but I think they deserve some.
    I dont think its true because there is no line of fire in copying. I can copy what is not protected. What it hurts is when MS copies the final product is sometimes better than original and so it hurts the source person / organization.

    Shabbir Bhimani
  12. libervisco

    libervisco New Member

    Well, there are certainly some regulations to follow in regard to "copying", but i still believe that M$ actually has little or no of products that they made on their own, from the very basics, from scratch, at least not of their major products such as windows os. Windows was based on DOS and DOS was written in Basic. Basic is the improved version of another programming framework which Mr. Gates simply took because he could. It was free software in university's.

    I agree we should give them a credit on popularizing the information technology, bringing it to every desktop. But i am sure it would have been done even if they didn't existed. Maybe it would have been done in a way of free software movement.

    The founding basics on which all of todays including Microsofts information technology products were founded are the technology's evolved on university's. So, again, they are the ones to give credit for starting it all.

    And here is another discusting thing i heard about M$ and their "fair" copying. According to this from linux today, they patented a prior art, the unix "sudo command". Not only that it is a clear of example of stealing innovation made by others and an example of how patents office functions (when they let something like this slip through), but it also shows the obvious intentions of Micro$oft. It may very well use that command agains linux community.
    After all, software patents shouldn't exist at all.
    And what can i finally say about all that, let the freekin' Microsoft goes to hell. It'll be a happy day when it falls apart. And WHO would really care.

    Now, call me an stupid free software advocate hating M$, could you blame me? Could you blame us?

  13. fsakalos

    fsakalos New Member

    First-I have shown Linux to my friend and he had no problems to learn how to work with new interface.

    Second-maybe, but take for example WORD. Open office is almost same and it is for free.

    Third-You can install Linux also like clicking machine but then it is not very good. You have to think. And I hope thinking is not based on computer knowledge.

    Fourth-I have never heard about such problem.

    Fifth-It can be set up if you have root privileges. I like this, because many times I heard about how Window$ users destroyed graphical subsystem

    That's all and I am not saying you have to agree

Share This Page