To correctly answer Microsoft users

[techwiz03]

Linux is supported by real users offering real help through forums like this one. Microsoft on the other hand provides you with a paid for operating system with 30 to 90 days of support but reserves the right to limit the help they will provide you.

Linux does not force you to upgrade your hardware, programs, or Operating system. The option is there if you wish but on your own time schedule. Windows has an EOL (End of life) policy whereby you are convinced their next best system with new hardware must be adhered to.

Multiple Linux versions and Windows versions can co-exist on the same system whereas Microsoft does a search and destroy of Linux boot loaders in an attempt to force you not to use anything but their's.

New Microsoft versions require you replace the entire system inclusive of apps and may result in total data loss during the upgrade. Linux versions can share the same partition and can be upgraded keeping both programs and settings in most cases.

Linux is true multi-user multi-tasking whereas Microsoft products at best imitate this behavior.

Linux can read and write it's own partitions as well as Microsoft based ones. The same can't be said of Microsoft.

Many standard GPS, Cell Phones, PDA's ISP's and Web Servers use Linux and other Unicee's, the same can't be said for Microsoft unless you count SYNC used in Ford Automobiles.

Microsoft uses it's power leverage to force hardware manufacturer's to only produce drivers for their operating system. Yet Linux has numerous hardware compatible drivers for all kinds of hardware. Many programmers are actively trying to develop drivers and persuade Manufacturers or release information about their devices.

Microsoft takes the approach that their operating systems are finished work but need to immediately install patches and fixes and service packs. Linux tells the trueth, no operating system is ever 100% complete as there is always going to be new issues new demands and unique new devices or inovations.

Microsoft is running toward a methodology of pay per use so they can achieve their claim that they own your system and you have paid the expense of buying the hardware with pre-installed windows operating system in order to have the right to use the hardware. Linux is founded on the principal that you own your hardware and you are free to use paid for or free software at your descretion.

any other thoughts??

[Akoellh]

Originally Posted by techwiz03

Linux does not force you to upgrade your hardware, programs, or Operating system. The option is there if you wish but on your own time schedule. Windows has an EOL (End of life) policy whereby you are convinced their next best system with new hardware must be adhered to.

Wrong, all Linux distributions have their EOL policy and none of the free (as in beer) ones have a life time comparable to Windows versions (perhaps except CentOS which is not aimed at desktop use at least primarily).

Windows XP is still officially supported and was released in 2001 IIRC, do you know any "desktop linux" from 2001 still supported?

(No, RHEL, SLES/D don't count...)

New Microsoft versions require you replace the entire system inclusive of apps and may result in total data loss during the upgrade. Linux versions can share the same partition and can be upgraded keeping both programs and settings in most cases.

Also wrong.

- You can upgrade Windows to the next version without data loss

- Data loss on upgrading linux to the next version can also happen

(Of course in most cases it's the users fault, especially not creating backups before upgrading, no matter which OS we're talking about.)

- A correct upgrade with a linux distribution will also (of course!) upgrade all applications with a newer version

In fact linux will certainly more often force you to have a new version of an application, due to upgraded dependencies, which comes completely obvious regarding the shorter development cycles of free software compared to proprietary software (release early, release often).

[Knurpht]

After 10 years of linux usage my answers have been simplified to just one:

I use linux because I want to, you use windows because you see no alternatives.

This avoids endless discussions, throwing with figures from all kinds of sources. No talks about big things like freedom, security etc.

[Akoellh]

Originally Posted by Knurpht

I use linux because I want to, you use windows because you see no alternatives.

One of the smallest (an by that nicest) ways to get to the point.

Originally Posted by Knurpht

This avoids endless discussions, throwing with figures from all kinds of sources. No talks about big things like freedom, security etc.

I agree, especially if those numbers and facts are plain wrong like in the first post.

The only reason I even cared about answering is that I don't think one should answer FUD and incorrect facts (uttered by MS frequently) by also using FUD or incorrect facts.

In german we have an expression for that called "jemandem einen Bärendienst erweisen" (word by word translated "to conduct a bear's service to somebody"), meaning to help somebody but doing more harm than good by your actions.

(AFAIK, this is derived from a fable, where a bear and a gardener meet and decide to live together as both of them are lonely.

One day the gardener takes a short nap outside and the bear sees a big fly landing on the gardener's face.

In oder to free him of this annoyance, he throws a huge rock after the fly killing not only the insect but also his friend).

[techwiz03]

Originally Posted by techwiz03

Linux does not force you to upgrade your hardware, programs, or Operating system. The option is there if you wish but on your own time schedule. Windows has an EOL (End of life) policy whereby you are convinced their next best system with new hardware must be adhered to.

New Microsoft versions require you replace the entire system inclusive of apps and may result in total data loss during the upgrade. Linux versions can share the same partition and can be upgraded keeping both programs and settings in most cases.


any other thoughts??

To clarify, When you have a Windows distribution and it reaches EOL, and it crashes, as of XP you may no longer install it on your hardware as you can no longer register the copy to work. With Linux, you may if you have the install CD/DVD's re-install on the same hardware indefinately and alternate hardware as long as the alternate hardware is supported by the version.

To clarify; With Microsoft, you get a basic operating system, with few real applications. Thusly; you have to have each app you need and re-install that app independantly if you re-install. If you upgrade which is usually a bad thing, it keeps some settings if your lucky, but often apps you were using no longer function correctly and require removal and upgrading on an individual basis. With Linux, you can have multiple versions on your Linux partition even older ones. True sometimes you need to improve your hardware for a new version. That being said, there is a big difference between individually downloading and installing one app at a time and simply letting the Linux package handler upgrade necessary libraries and apps.

After some 35 years of working with systems of all types and handling the shear number of issues from all walks I've seen more than my share!

[TaraIkeda]

Originally Posted by Akoellh

Wrong, all Linux distributions have their EOL policy and none of the free (as in beer) ones have a life time comparable to Windows versions (perhaps except CentOS which is not aimed at desktop use at least primarily).

Windows XP is still officially supported and was released in 2001 IIRC, do you know any "desktop linux" from 2001 still supported?

(No, RHEL, SLES/D don't count...)

But most of the linuxes out there do have relatively good lifespans, even though its not as long as Microsofts cycles most modern distros are leaning toward a more predictable release cycle.
Actually I prefer Linux's planned scheduling, having predictable release cycles is what keeps me using linux.

Originally Posted by Akoellh

- You can upgrade Windows to the next version without data loss

Not when I updated from ME to XP, lost everything

- Data loss on upgrading linux to the next version can also happen

(Of course in most cases it's the users fault, especially not creating backups before upgrading, no matter which OS we're talking about.)

I have not experienced much data loss personally from Linux to Linux though, but i have encountered mission critical loss with XP when going between the service packs.

- A correct upgrade with a linux distribution will also (of course!) upgrade all applications with a newer version

Obvious

In fact linux will certainly more often force you to have a new version of an application, due to upgraded dependencies, which comes completely obvious regarding the shorter development cycles of free software compared to proprietary software (release early, release often).

Yes but having predictable updates and having a time period to work with does have its advantages, it does ensure that applications work for that version and no major bugs are encountered.
Sometimes updating software in any OS can cause severe damage, I have bumped into this in both OS's.
But much less in Linux, for me updating linux has been a smooth process.

[RedDwarf]

Originally Posted by techwiz03

Linux is supported by real users offering real help through forums like this one. Microsoft on the other hand provides you with a paid for operating system with 30 to 90 days of support but reserves the right to limit the help they will provide you.

There are also forums like this one for Windows. And openSUSE is also sold with a 90 days installation support... I don't expect it to be better or worse than the support provided by Microsoft for Windows.

Originally Posted by techwiz03

Linux does not force you to upgrade your hardware, programs, or Operating system. The option is there if you wish but on your own time schedule. Windows has an EOL (End of life) policy whereby you are convinced their next best system with new hardware must be adhered to.

Already answered.

Originally Posted by techwiz03

Multiple Linux versions and Windows versions can co-exist on the same system whereas Microsoft does a search and destroy of Linux boot loaders in an attempt to force you not to use anything but their's.

You can't blame Microsoft for not wasting time adding ext3 support to NTLDR and adding a detection of other systems to the installer when these other system have a really low market share. Nowadays isn't common, but for some time a distro installer could overwrite the boot loader without adding entries for other Linux distros or Windows.
Supposing malice here is gratuitous.

Originally Posted by techwiz03

New Microsoft versions require you replace the entire system inclusive of apps and may result in total data loss during the upgrade. Linux versions can share the same partition and can be upgraded keeping both programs and settings in most cases.

Already answered.

Originally Posted by techwiz03

Linux is true multi-user multi-tasking whereas Microsoft products at best imitate this behavior.

Technical arguments should be *a lot* more detailed. And *must* include sources.

Originally Posted by techwiz03

Linux can read and write it's own partitions as well as Microsoft based ones. The same can't be said of Microsoft.

Well, Windows provides the infrastructure to add new filesystems support as "plugins", a good thing from Microsoft. They don't develop themself support for every existing filesystem? Well, that's probably because most of its user don't need/ask for it.

Originally Posted by techwiz03

Many standard GPS, Cell Phones, PDA's ISP's and Web Servers use Linux and other Unicee's, the same can't be said for Microsoft unless you count SYNC used in Ford Automobiles.

This argument is really flawed.
If many gadgets use Linux that probably means Linux is a good option for these gadgets, yes. But if you continue using the same logic (you can't change it for your interest whenever you want), Windows is used in most desktop PCs... so that logic says Windows is the best option for desktop PCs.

Originally Posted by techwiz03

Microsoft uses it's power leverage to force hardware manufacturer's to only produce drivers for their operating system. Yet Linux has numerous hardware compatible drivers for all kinds of hardware. Many programmers are actively trying to develop drivers and persuade Manufacturers or release information about their devices.

For a hardware developer to put the "Certified for Windows Vista" logo in its products it must support the standard USB profiles. That means that digital cameras, MP3 players, webcams... and virtually anything that is connected to a USB port will work in Windows, Linux, Mac and any other OS without installing extra drivers.
That is "force hardware manufacturer's to only produce drivers for their operating system"???

Originally Posted by techwiz03

Microsoft takes the approach that their operating systems are finished work but need to immediately install patches and fixes and service packs. Linux tells the trueth, no operating system is ever 100% complete as there is always going to be new issues new demands and unique new devices or inovations.

The fact that they release these "patches and fixes and service packs" isn't by itself a sign that they do *not* "take the approach that their operating systems are finished work" (whatever that means)?

Originally Posted by techwiz03

Microsoft is running toward a methodology of pay per use so they can achieve their claim that they own your system and you have paid the expense of buying the hardware with pre-installed windows operating system in order to have the right to use the hardware. Linux is founded on the principal that you own your hardware and you are free to use paid for or free software at your descretion.

Yes, and Hotmail will start to be a pay service, I read that in an email I received from someone.
In any case, whatever Microsoft *can* do in the future is a problem users will have to deal in the future... for now they don't need to worry about this.

I agree with Akoellh, this list is just FUD.
And you can share whatever personal experiences you had with Linux/Windows... that doesn't means anything. You need a big sample for the conclusions to be representative.

[wakou]

Multiple Linux versions and Windows versions can co-exist on the same system whereas Microsoft does a search and destroy of Linux boot loaders in an attempt to force you not to use anything but their's.

I well remember my first attempts at installing linux, destroying the mbr and rendering the system (even the HDD itself) unuseable for any but an expert, and a reformat/reinstall of jolly old windows became necessary. Grub has IMHE been flawless in this regard, but loadlin/lilo caused many a destroyed OS in the past. (Of course, they weren't actually destroyed but were rendered useless, and they also diverted many interested parties away from Linux.)

[Confuseling]

Originally Posted by RedDwarf

...
You can't blame Microsoft for not wasting time adding ext3 support to NTLDR and adding a detection of other systems to the installer when these other system have a really low market share. Nowadays isn't common, but for some time a distro installer could overwrite the boot loader without adding entries for other Linux distros or Windows.
Supposing malice here is gratuitous.
...

I agree with much of your post, but here I have my suspicions. Hanlon's Razor and all, but up to a limit.

As far as I'm aware the Windows XP CD is *incapable* of setting the boot flag the system it installs *requires* to be able to boot.

Why on earth would you leave this out, if not to make it more awkward to multi-boot?

[dons tin-foil hat...]

[hendersj]

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:46:02 +0000, Akoellh wrote:

> Windows XP is still officially supported and was released in 2001 IIRC,
> do you know any "desktop linux" from 2001 still supported?
>
> (No, RHEL, SLES/D don't count...)

Sure they do; you're talking about a commercial Windows release, so
commercial Linux releases are actually a better apples-to-apples
comparison.

Jim



--
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Moderator