I tend to agree.
There are two points of mention inspired from this article for further
reading:
http://www.raizlabs.com/blog/2005/11/linux-thoughts.html
People avoid change
New OSes break applications
These points are even valid within the Windows world (98->XP)
Quoting Ramon Casha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Both operating systems have their advantages and disadvantages. Windows is
very easy to use, and is already widely known. It also tends to come
preinstalled (not that Linux installations are difficult), and many more
games are available on Windows than on Linux. However the biggest advantage
of Windows is that there is still a lot of software out there, especially
specialised software, which only runs on Windows. If you or your company
depends on any such software you may well have no choice but to stick to
Linux.
On the other hand Linux is free (in price) - and even when you decide
to buy a
shrink-wrapped distro from the vendor, it works out MUCH cheaper than an
equivalent Windows installation. Being open-source, it also advances more
rapidly and is more reliable. Being Unix-based, it had networking (and
therefore security) designed into it from day 1, and has LOADS of software
included with it, like web servers and so on.
I am currently working on Windows at work (not my choice), and I often run
into these differences. I wanted to add some virtual hosts to IIS on my XP
box and discovered that XP restricts you to one virtual host. The software
itself is quite capable of hosting more, but a business decision was taken at
Microsoft to limit XP so that people would buy the (more expensive) server
version for serious stuff. That's a bit like cheating to me. On my
freely-downloaded Mandriva CDs the software they include is not restricted at
all - the apache web server will let me use every bit of its functionality,
even though Mandriva does sell a "server version" of its software. Also I am
developing with .NET and I've lost count how often I've needed to see exactly
what is happening under the hood, in order to get my apps to work, but .NET
is distributed as binary only. There is a "shared source" thingy but the red
tape and NDA's and stuff that you have to go through is not for the faint of
heart.
So essentially, Linux is not for everyone. The myth that I want to work
against is that Windows is. I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all
solution, which is why there are so many Linux distributions.
On Saturday 05 November 2005 14:56, Jean Azzopardi wrote:
Can anyone tell me any advantages of Linux over Windows, despite its free
price and its opensourceness? Because I have some trouble convincing some
of my friends...
_______________________________________________
MLUG-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailserv.megabyte.net/mailman/listinfo/mlug-list
_______________________________________________
MLUG-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailserv.megabyte.net/mailman/listinfo/mlug-list
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
