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 : fabrice.meunier Date : Tue Sep 14 2004 08:33 am .. agompel@yahoo.com (linuxuser) wrote in message news:<6aaf28e6.0409031401.6f9551b4@posting.google.com>... > 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"? .