Subj : Re: Is (Redhat) Linux just a cheap version of Windows? --> An attempt to a rationale answer. To : comp.os.linux.redhat,comp.os.linux From : agompel Date : Fri Sep 03 2004 04:01 pm Sam: I will try her to answer "rationally" your question, and ask the "purists" to forgive me. 1) An operating system (OS) is the basic piece of sofwtware necessary to run "all kinds of programs" on a given computer architechture. 2) Windows is really a tradename which covers several somewhat differents OS'es. Some versions are good quality (derivatives of Windows NT), and mostly stable. Some are say.... like toys (windows 95...). Windows XP is also a tradename, and there are several versions. Windows is "proprietary" (the source code of the basic building blocks of the OS), are unavailable to the public, and MicroSoft does not really want any third party to do this either Windows has been designed as a clone of the Mac OS: sexy look, and "idiot's proof". Most of the user's interface is graphic (GUI). This trade off of being idiot proof, create often some limits. Same at the GUI level: ther are just some things that GUI cannot do, or cannot do well... or cannot do simply. 3) Linux, is a clone of UNIX so here I will use them as synonyms. Unix was designed incrementally (continuously enhanced since the late 1970). Today Unix (and Linux), is a very powerfull OS, with litterally thousands of belt and whistles, than Windows cannot really match. There is also a huge number of UNIX applications. Linux, pretty much, after it reached (cloned pretty completly UNIX), the level of a good UNIX, started to evolve in something better that the original Unix: * Many enhancements of popular existing Unix programs. * Emergence of several GUI based versions of Unix, which was a bit poor in this area. Currently these GUIs match or beat both Windows and Mac. The two most popular GUI are KDE, and GNOME, and are not mutually exclusive. Some of the best applications are either written using KDE, or GNOME. Litterally thousands of the best applications availble on a computer are also not only "free" of cost, but free of access (anyone can modify them). The best internet browsers are available on Linux, where the development is done. (Mozilla and its FireFox derivative...). 4) Linux is as simple to use as Windows, or MAC, but is also more complicated to maintain: so far less effort has been done on Linux to make the system managment largely done with GUI, and the only consistent interface there is KDE. So if you use Linux, you have to grab a good book, and learn the basic, which is neither a very smal, nor a big undertaking. It is work, but what you learn is going to be useful for the rest of your life as a Linux user. The "basic skills" are fairly simple to apprehend, and enough for simple user (non programer) system administration. 5) In a few areas, Linux shines where Windows just glows: * Stability: system crashes are very rares, compared to Windows (any version!). * System security: Linux/Unix has a very good file system, and does not require the constant rat's race of windows with new "Services Packs" to fix lots of problems. Even quite old/obsolete versions of Linux are stable and secure. * Features: Any basic good "distro" has lots of features that you have to pay for on Windows, like OpenOffice, Fancy CD/DVD burners, etc... Conclusion: Linux is not really a cheap version of Windows, quite the opposite. In fact Windows just cannot match yet the stabilty. security and features of Linux. But Windows (latest versions) is a polished OS, simpler to use than Linux for the non computer litterate. This advantage is still there, but the last two years have been amazing, and the latest commercial versions of Linux, are now simple to administer, and like for Windows good support, including training, books are available. The TCO (Total cost of ownership) have been a much discussed topic, but many arguments there are quite biased, and arguable. In my view, the TCO at the short and long term are two very different stories. TCO also varies a lot with the use of a computer: home, office, technical etc... All this being said, I will always choose the apllication I like the most before the OS, because this is the most importnat for a user. In office, MAC and Windows may have a slight advantage. In the technical world, Unix/Linux is unbeatable: way ahead of anything else. For games, Linux cannot match Windows or Mac. --- This was my two cents on this topic. ------------------------------------------------------ "Mr. Big" wrote in message news:... > Singburi Sam wrote: > > Once someone showed me ``man intro'' > > I was self-sufficient. There was no billionaire with a vested > > interest in user ignorance: maybe that's why ``man intro'' existed. > > > > Anyone ever show you "man touch"? .