why blame MICROSOFT

[Solar]

The author went on by saying that it was JUST for MS to be among the top by using a ruthless marketing stategy of suffocating all the competitors.

That's the American Dream, baby...

[elias]

first of all, im getting tired of people saying linux is better in their opinion. its not an opinion. linux IS better as an OS. also, its alot more powerful and there are so many things you can do on a command line you cant do on windows. but however, it does all come down to a matter of needs. wat do most people who own a computer do? surf the net, play games, and type things in a word processor. thats why something as simple as windows is good for them. XP no longer really crashes, it just sits there sometimes, for 10 minutes, finding out what went wrong, and it usually recovers. windows may be better for 70% of the people out there, ut it is still not a good OS. and i dont like microsoft because of their marketing, not because they suck at creating software.

[Solar]

its not an opinion. linux IS better as an OS.

That is the problem. In my opinion, GNU/Linux as an OS (not as a kernel / technology) is not even close.

In the opinion of the company I work for, Linux is a non-option due to total cost of ownership.

In the opinion of my boss, Linux is a non-option due to less scaleability.

(We're using Solaris instead.)

See? It is a matter of opinion. Claiming that Linux is "just better" is hubris.

also, its alot more powerful and there are so many things you can do on a command line you cant do on windows.

Me personally, I loathe the command line unless I have to go to the nitty-gritty. I prefer a graphical "find" utility over 'find . -name "*.hpp" | xargs grep "whatever"' any time.

[@uote]
but however, it does all come down to a matter of needs. wat do most people who own a computer do?

Now you come to the core of it.

surf the net, play games, and type things in a word processor. thats why something as simple as windows is good for them.

Why should the tool become complex just because I have a complex problem to solve? It's the problem I need to be done with, not the tool. A lesson some command-line oriented people refuse to learn.

windows may be better for 70% of the people out there, ut it is still not a good OS.

The OS that's better for your needs is, by definition, the better OS.

and i dont like microsoft because of their marketing, not because they suck at creating software.

Their marketing is quite OK, and not worse than everybody else. It's their company politics I loathe.

[nullify]

also, its alot more powerful and there are so many things you can do on a command line you cant do on windows.

Command line interfaces are not exactly the most efficient way for people to interface with their system if they are not good typists. Although its OK to allow the user to access powerful shell capabilities, the operating system shouldn't _force_ the user to _have to_ use the shell to accomplish necessary tasks.

windows may be better for 70% of the people out there, ut it is still not a good OS.

I disagree. If Windows allows people to accomplish the tasks they want with less hassle than Linux, Windows can be ranked the better OS. In the end, people view their computer (and operating system) as a _tool_ to get things done. They don't care about any technical hogwash such as monolithic/microkernels, multithreading, kernel modules, etc.; as long as Windows requires less expertise to use and operates with reasonable efficiency, people will use it. As far as they're concerned, the interface _is_ the operating system.

[elias]

its not a matter of opinion. just because somethign is better for you dosnt make it better. just ask yourself wat makes a good operating system, and dont say wat fills your needs.

[Tim]

There's no such thing as a computer program which will accept two pieces of source code as input and tell you which one is better. It's impossible to say 100% that one or the other is better (as you are doing).

In terms of market share, Windows is several orders of magnitude 'better' than Linux. In terms of maturity, Linux (as a Unix) is probably better. Linux has lots of software available. Windows has higher-quality sofware available. And so on.

The only way you can answer the question of which is better is to ask, "which is better for me?"

[anubis]

Vouch always for Free source cos this wont never happen with it. ;D

[elias]

you dont need a computer program. just use your brain. and you avoided my question as to what makes a good operating system. windows is better because it makes more money? is this what you mean by a marketing standpoint? someone above was saying that an operating system is a tool and should be easy to use. i do agree with that. but shouldnt an easy to use tool also work? and work correctly without falling apart?

[Solar]

someone above was saying that an operating system is a tool and should be easy to use. i do agree with that. but shouldnt an easy to use tool also work? and work correctly without falling apart?

For me, that's Windows. I couldn't get my WLAN to work under Linux, I couldn't connect my PDA, I couldn't find a file manager meeting my standards, and I absolutely loathed the user interface.

I didn't find Linux to be any more stable than Windows. (Actually, inserting my WLAN card into the PCMCIA port crashed my system, reproducably.)

And I still think AmigaOS has some advantages over both, especially in the UI department.

Still, for me Windows is the best tool.

But I also understand why, for other people, the choice is a different one, since their demands and priorities differ.

See? It is a matter of opinion.

(And please, do not give me a WLAN / PDA / file manager how-to. I respect your opinion, so please respect mine, and don't think I haven't RTFM.)

PS: Isn't "free" software about choice? So what's so terrible if I, after carefully trying the alternatives, chose Windows?

[distantvoices]

*takes the buzzsaw and goes for microsoft ...*

oy, gewalt, nice argument is going on here, dudes. To read this after two weeks worth of vacation spent in sweden, this is kinda shock .

But anyway, here are my two cents:

1. Which OS to choose is for an enterprise always a matter of finding an opinion: via brainstorming the needs, doing portfeulles and all this other project management squishsquash. In the end it leads to the OPINION of some manager who is responsible for the decision. so please come no one with sentences about Linux and so is good and this is a fact and no opinion.

2. Linux is good. Linux rocks. Windows is good. Windows rocks. MacOS is really good. It rocks more. I'd recommend you who throw flames on windows: try first to create such a thing before bickering about it. The software can't be taken respnsible for this besmirching the market strategy microsoft is following.

3. Windows has definitely matured in a way I find good. It is true that former versions of it were utterly crap. Even that so high levelled windows NT is sorta crap since windows 2000.

4. If you want really good high levelled software: go for solaris, irix, sgi or qnx.

5. I tend to use each os for special purpose: I do graphics work,web designing and 3d designing entirely with the windows platform - there are the convenient tools for it. For programming issues, I use Linux/Unix: I prefer make over nmake due to the clearer syntax.

6. Command-line versus Gui: what a waste of time to discuss this: one can also navigate throu a gui via keyboard. Further more, each one prefers his own methods. So for gods sake please don't some pals tell others cli is better than gui.

7. Thank you for your real magnificient audience.

[Solar]

Credit where credit is due, without Cygwin I would find Windows much less enjoyable.

[distantvoices]

*ggg* Cygwin can be used as "x-terminal" to connect to some unix server, so one can work on that server remotely - with gui and so forth.

'S been some hard piece of research to find out how this is to be done cuz the nitty gritty is allways hidden in a huge mass of come-along-information.

Nice is that Cygwin installation doesn't fiddle with the windows registry.

[nullify]

*ggg* Cygwin can be used as "x-terminal" to connect to some unix server, so one can work on that server remotely - with gui and so forth.

'S been some hard piece of research to find out how this is to be done cuz the nitty gritty is allways hidden in a huge mass of come-along-information. registry.

UNIX server - 192.168.0.1
Cygwin computer - 192.168.0.2

From the cygwin computer, start the X server, then:

$ xhost +192.168.0.1
$ ssh -X 192.168.0.1
[ Now you have a shell prompt at the UNIX server. ]
% export DISPLAY=192.168.0.2:0.0
% [ Now you can lauch the X app from the UNIX server, and it should display on the cygwin computer. ]

[anubis]

Win9x sucked that too badly. Memoryleaks was a pain in the ...
Being a dialup user i could not go online for more than 25-30 minutes
before the computer started to act up. Once in such a crash it acted up giving the cause as error in winsock32.dll. Downloading & updating it was for no good. The only option left was installing Win2000 in an additiona partition(still needed 98 for all those games running and using DOS4GW) Windows 2000 was better much better with rock stability. Had an additional speed on net of 30-40% that was very gooood.

Though i had linux on an addtional partition, i never used it for surfing the net. The reason was i could not get a good driver module for my internal modem. Also couldnot access my USB device not becos its not there but because my manufacturer does not give me an updated driver. Most of the problem regarding linux stems not in the OS itself but by the people concerned with promoting Windows. Biggies take side with MS and donot give device drivers for Linux. That is bad.

SO i use linux strictly when i am not on the net or when i am writing my OS or playing my favourite game FOUL-EGGS. I am thinking of rectifying all these problems by writing my own device drivers for modem and USB in linux. Writing a port of foul-eggs for windows and completing my OS.Linux has the best compiler in the world GCC, its very good for a developer, and more ...I am not tempted to use Linux becos its free just becos it is too powerful a tool for writing my OS.

Talking abt stability, though whatever may be said abt a OS it cannot and wouldnot become stable until strict rules are followed like those which are followed for real time OS. But even RTOS crash sometimes...Destop OS sadly r never meant that way and whatever happens all Desktop OS are meant to crash some day.

But think of the many people using the Computers, they are not exactly the people who we can say intellectual with computers. They are normal people whose panache is limited to normal applications like word or excel. They r not concerned with using the command line Vi when they have a graphical MS-Word. Thats where MS scores above all. When Linux or any OS reaches to the masses and the importantly masses r not compelled by force to use it then only the true perfect OS will reach the desktops. And sadly that is seems a distant goal for any OS today... But the prime contendor, according to me, for the perfect OS seems Linux right now.

Linux how much good cannot just workout to the top with just developers around the world, it also need some big-wigs like IBM and Oracle to succed. Good for us that they r taking an active interst in it, lets hope that its not for some selfish interst on their own part.

For all those who have read 'Altas Shrugged' by Ayn Rand, i am sometimes tempted to compare MS with the 'others'(the villains) that the books main character John Galt fights against.

[nullify]

Linux has the best compiler in the world GCC

It may be, but GCC has unfortunately gotten quite a bit slower over time, and their insistance upon only implementing general portable optimizations hampers its ability to compete with other compilers (ICC) when it comes to the quality of generated code.

Talking abt stability, though whatever may be said abt a OS it cannot and wouldnot become stable until strict rules are followed like those which are followed for real time OS. But even RTOS crash sometimes...Destop OS sadly r never meant that way and whatever happens all Desktop OS are meant to crash some day.

I wouldn't say they are _meant_ to crash; its just that as a desktop operating system, the user base will be stressing the system in a variety of different areas, so the system has to be a master of all trades and a jack of none.

Linux how much good cannot just workout to the top with just developers around the world, it also need some big-wigs like IBM and Oracle to succed. Good for us that they r taking an active interst in it, lets hope that its not for some selfish interst on their own part.

Hate to break it to you, but the motives of IBM and Oracle _are_ probably is due to "some selfish interest on their own part." They wouldn't bother investing their time and resources on Linux if they think could utilize it for better profit elsewhere. All companies are like that. I'm sure if Apple had defeated Microsoft back in the day, they'd be just as "evil" as Microsoft is now... Capitalism thrives on greed and selfishness : -)