Linux Vs Windows by Microsoft - Do you agree with Mircosoft?

Question

Linux Vs Windows by Microsoft - Do you agree with Mircosoft?

Answer 1

For most users a free LINUX distribution is the only operating system that is needed. No cost for additional programs too.



A good example is UBUNTU (or XUBUNTU if the computer has less than 256MB of RAM).



It's a free, reliable and up to date operating system.



You can explore it from the "LIVE CD".



It's easy to install and use. You can dual boot it with other operating systems.



Once you have it installed, you gain access to thousands of free programs created by the open source community. There is excellent support - see the WIKI starter guide, and the Linux forums.



Always back up your data before making changes to your computer.

Answer 2

Absolutely not. Microsoft's greatest contribution to computing is the fantastic amount of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) they spread throughout the industry regarding their competitors. Linux is a competitor.



Over the years I've used several Linux distributions, but I've stuck with the one most folk shy away from: Debian. Why do most folk pass it by? It wasn't considered particularly user friendly. However Debian has the most powerful package management system of any distribution - even Windows. FUD, it seems, also exists in Linux circles. However, times are changing: Ubuntu desktop and server distributions have seen to that. And virtualisation - including pseudo-virtualisation like coLinux (I've Debian and Ubuntu instances running concurrently under Windows XP as I type) - tied to the Linux kernel threatens Microsoft in more ways than it cares to admit.



Anyway, as for server applications and administration, throw a LAMP distribution together with Mono (for decent C# and Javascript ASP under Apache) and Webmin, and you'll see just how easy Linux is to handle.



Now for you Linux fanboys out there: this past week has seen me move 7 aging Windows boxes over to Ubuntu and Kubuntu because the private, domestic owners had no intention of upgrading their hardware to support Vista - and their confidence in XP hit the deck after Microsoft noted that support for the OS would finish at the end of this decade. (After experiencing the quality of Gnome and KDE applications via the medium of live CDs they had to convince me to dump XP on their behalf.) 4 Windows 2000 servers were dumped in favour of a basic Debian installation shortly afterward.

Answer 3

i rarely agree with anything microsoft has to say... Linux works straight off teh CD.. no messing around for hours... no blue screen of death... TEN minutes after you insert the CD youre on teh net, it shows you everything connected to your motherboard...and it all auto configures...



how come a free operating system is go good, and the one with a price tag equal to the national debt of equador... well its an operating occasionally system... and frankly... if i could get it to run office... yes, microsoft office 2007, id be using it... (open office, whilst quite good, isnt MS office... and its all about productivity.)



XP sucks, what on earth can we expect from vista... i darent try string theory in case it ties itself in knots... and maybe chaos theory is already running in the background...

Answer 4

Wow, it looks like M$ is finally realizing that Linux is better and they are trying to stop the flow of businesses moving to Linux.



The M$s architecture is fundamentally flawed. There are soo many reasons. Too much to go into, but needless to say Linux is far better.



Linux = More secure, cheaper, faster, more stable

M$ = crap



All you have to do is compare uptime of windows servers vs . linux. Linux blows it out of the water.



Small example: I maintian a file server for a small network using Samba. Initially it was a Windows based machine, but after a few days, I would notice the performance degrade. I would have to reset it. I switched to Xubuntu about a year ago. The uptime counter is over 45 days. It would have been more but a tstorm kicked out the power 45 days ago. Before that it was up for another 45 days(again power failure). The perofrmance does not degrade.

Answer 5

I agree with Linux.

Answer 6

As it always has been, Unix is a much more sound environment.



Think of the facts :



* File permissions are built in - not an after thought

* You can always find a tool to do what you need to do

* There is no DLL hell - all executables are self-contained

* There is much better user control

* The help files make sense

* Utilities can be glued together

* It is far easier to see "under the bonnet"



On the downside :



* There is not as much help on the net

* GUIs aren't always available for all tools

* Newbies may find it harder to get to grips with



Sounds like MS are clutching at straws. Bet a few of those companies pocketed a few dollars or were MS shops to start with.

Answer 7

I agree that the Windows Server 2003 platform is easier to use and easier to maintain. You can't beat it's user friendliness and you just have to reboot it regularly to keep it stable or it will crash. Ha ha.



While the Linux platform is more stable it also does require a rather steep learning curve. Most server applications for Linux requires a computer expert to run and maintain as most Linux server apps are made for IT professionals. But notice that as more user friendly Linux distros and apps are being developed there will come a time that the usability of Linux will be comparable or better than windows. That's what I'm hoping for - a totally free future.



One more thing, if you have ever experienced clustering with NT or win2k and exchange server, it's freakin' crazy. I guess microsoft learned a lot from that and it shows in win2k3. However, it's just not enough.



Summary:

Win2k3:

user friendly

secure(almost)

easy to maintain(reboot to maintain he he just 1 button)

you don't have to be smart to be a network/systems administrator



Linux as a server platform

not so user friendly (but it's almost there)

more secure

stable

harder to maintain (only if it requires maintenance at all)

you need a bit of know how and patience to master this.



So what Microsoft says is true after all (to a certain degree). At least they weren't lying.

Answer 8

I don´t know if it´s reliable information since it´s coming from themselves. I would like to see an opinion of this article from some respected computer magazine.

Answer 9

microsoft will say anything at this point with vista being such a dud, and ibm and now dell toying with linux there market share is falling (several years ago when ibm started using linux microsoft said they would tank but they didnt)

Answer 10

Tried Linux - was not impressed - gone back to windows

Answer 11

In my years of experience it has been Microsoft that been hacked and cracked so many times over then Linux and Unix. The wonderous thing is why pay so much money for a product that have problems then Unix which is FREE. Microsoft is build to make money and their article is obviously biased. The fact remains that Unix/Linux systems are still very widely in use by most web servers. Also open source languages are 100 times more widely used then any Microsoft product. Microsoft however has its advantages with its user friendlier environment.

Answer 12

The almighty corporation will always find the most effective and cost-efficient solution to a problem. Many very large corporations run almost exclusively on a Microsoft platform, and many run on Linux and Unix. It is not reasonable to assume that all of one or the other is just plain wrong - no corporation would throw money away when a more profitable solution existed. The answer is that both platforms are effective for different environments and needs.



Additionally, it isn't fair to criticize Microsoft for pushing their platform over Linux, even if it isn't the best solution. Their job is to maximize profit, nothing else.

Answer 13

Let's face the fact :



1.

- Linux was build by smart and genius people around the world.

- Windows was build by the best programmer around the world.



2.

-Most of linux programmers spend 3-4 hours/day and 2-3 days/week, if they have time and 'mood'. I didn't mean to disrespect, cause i know some of 'linux' guru spend their entire life just to make free software for us.

- Windows programmers spend 6-7 hours/day and 5-6 days/week.



3.

Every software which build by microsoft eg. WMPlayer, IE, based on the deep research about 'what the users wants' , 'how the users will interact with this' etc, and microsoft have special teams for this.



4.

Some people say, linux have less bugs than windows.

the fact : linux console of course have less bugs compare to Windows, but try to compare it with MS-Dos 15 years ago, I never see MS-Dos bugs.

for Linux XWindow? bugs everywhere.



5.

Linux have better security?

How many Linux users can be found in internet? is it worth if someone learn how to crack linux security?

notes : most of Linux 'guru' suggest, not to run Linux XWindow as a server and never... ever run Linux XWindow under 'root' user for the security reason.



6.

In some point, Linux is better than Microsoft as a server.

To run 'Web Server', windows have to load all picture, sound, fonts, printer drivers etc.... , Linux can run web server just from the console, it is very handy.



I love linux, it's unique, interesting, challenging and I can learn so much from linux, but i love Windows more.



Imagine if Windows VISTA is free, i can't wait to install it in my computer.

Answer 14

No. To get more info, i would look into other places, besides M$ and Linux, to see what's really going on. Notice there's no pro-Linux arguments on there? Linux is a great platform, a bigger competitor than Microsoft gives credit to.

Answer 15

why not?