What are the advantages of using Linux over Windows for PC desktop users?

  • Thread starter Thread starter symbolipoint
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Systems
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the preferences for computer operating systems among Mathematics, Physics, and Engineering enthusiasts. Participants express a variety of opinions, with many favoring Linux-based systems due to their open-source nature, extensive libraries, and lack of licensing issues. MS-DOS and Windows are also mentioned, with some users nostalgic for DOS while others appreciate Windows for its versatility and user-friendliness. Mac OS X is highlighted for its interface and Unix-based architecture, which some argue makes it closer to Unix than Linux. The conversation touches on the vast number of Linux distributions available, with users sharing their experiences and preferences for specific distros like Fedora and Gentoo. The benefits of Linux, including stability, performance, and security, are discussed, particularly in relation to programming and computational tasks. The dialogue also addresses the differences between Unix and DOS, with participants debating their methodologies and historical development. Overall, the thread reflects a rich exchange of insights on the suitability of various operating systems for technical and academic purposes.
symbolipoint
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
7,560
Reaction score
2,002
Maybe I should have presented this as a poll: But what are the favorite computer operating systems among Mathematics, Physics, and Engineering enthusiasts (students, professionals, teachers, researchers)? Any particular or general reasons why?
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
Do you really want to know? :-p

Well, MS-DOS is one of my favourites. Nostalgy, I guess.
 
As a student I use linux based systems in my computer engineering courses for hardware based programming in assembly and C/C++. The reason is becuase it comes with all the needed libraries right from the install so there is no need to go looking for them. And also there are no licensing issues to worry about.
 
IOS... But it was actually made from Unix I believe.

I use *nix at home along with xp and osX. My preference depends on what I am trying to do.. I use osx the most however, and I like the interface, and even more so I like what is under the hood... For Buisness application I prefer Unix or Solaris.
 
Last edited:
I like a cygwin-windows combination.
 
I've been sticking to Linux for the past few months. I've not tried out all the flavours, so I'm still a newbie. I still have XP sitting for a few things. Once I find apps that can do stuff that I rely XP for, then I will bid farewell to Windows. (Actually, the rest of the world would do that too, if they can find the suitable programs that run on Linux :biggrin:)
 
neutrino said:
I've been sticking to Linux for the past few months. I've not tried out all the flavours, so I'm still a newbie. I still have XP sitting for a few things. Once I find apps that can do stuff that I rely XP for, then I will bid farewell to Windows. (Actually, the rest of the world would do that too, if they can find the suitable programs that run on Linux :biggrin:)

If you want to try all the flavors, you have a long way to go. There are over 350 distros out there ;) If you are looking for win32 equivalent apps, you can look through this list for some suggestion.
 
I don't want to go through all the distros, at least not right now...I'm not that adventurous. May be the most popular ones, with a large user base and support, in the near future, say FC, openSUSE, et.al. In fact, new ones are popping up like mushrooms on a daily basis. There's one distro, and there are two others, which are same excpet for desktop environments, and the one with closed-source stuff pre-installed, and one with no closed-source stuff at all, and then there's one with a religious bias!
 
  • #10
...and one with a religious bias!

Could this be Ubuntu for Christians (Ubuntu Christian Edition)? :smile:

I tend to stick with the only open source software (even games!). I dislike having any closed source software on my [linux] machine. IMHO, it goes against the philosophy of GNU/Linux. I tend to limit myself to rpm and pkg based distros only. It helps in the decision process of figuring out what new distro to use next.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
ranger said:
Could this be Ubuntu for Christians (Ubuntu Christian Edition)? :smile:

Actually, I listed all the off-shoots of Ubuntu there, including Ubuntu CE. K/X/Ubuntu, Linux Mint, gNewSense and Ubuntu CE.

I tend to stick with the only open source software (even games!). I dislike having any closed source software on my [linux] machine. IMHO, it goes against the philosophy of GNU/Linux. I tend to limit myself to rpm and pkg based distros only. It helps in the decision process of figuring out what new distro to use next.

I just have a few proprietary software on borad (Ubuntu 6.10). Acrobat Reader, Opera, although I Firefox is my browser of choice.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
My opinion is that Windows is the worlds best operating system based on the fact that even though it has its downs, it is still designed to be usable for a variety of users ranging from retired to beginners and it isn't that shameful for programming either.

However, as a not-so-generic computer user, I would have to say any open source (ish) system designed for programming, modeling and overall computations. Take your pick.
 
  • #13
My opinion is that Windows is the worlds best operating system based on the fact that even though it has its downs,
Actually it really does depend on what systems you want to operate, right? Windows wouldn't be the worlds best operating system for a fridge or perhaps a space shuttle now would it :smile:

Anyway I disaggree and would say that a Mac is far easier to use than windows, (for a desktop pc)... But easy of use for me doesn't equate with best
 
  • #14
Anttech said:
Actually it really does depend on what systems you want to operate, right? Windows wouldn't be the worlds best operating system for a fridge or perhaps a space shuttle now would it :smile:

Anyway I disaggree and would say that a Mac is far easier to use than windows, (for a desktop pc)... But easy of use for me doesn't equate with best

True. :smile:

What I meant to say was that Windows is one of the most all around versatile operating systems.
 
  • #15
Moridin said:
True. :smile:

What I meant to say was that Windows is one of the most all around versatile operating systems.

It depends on your perception of "all around versatile". :wink:
 
  • #16
Waiting on my dual boot Fedora Core--XP laptop right now...
 
  • #17
ranger said:
It depends on your perception of "all around versatile". :wink:
:smile: Versatile is what's available that gets the job done with the least amount of aggavation on my part.

In the case of uPs there is no OS, you write your own.

I might note that MS DOS could be considered a variant of UNIX. :-p
 
  • #18
I might note that MS DOS could be considered a variant of UNIX.
Why?......
 
  • #19
Here's several pictures of my new laptop that will run my "preferred" operating system -- Solaris.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/85894987@N00/sets/72157594511620201/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
And now we have distros working together
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS7103672739.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
I might note that MS DOS could be considered a variant of UNIX.

Not really though. A command line based OS is not like Unix just becuase of the command line. Its methodology is far different. The only OS that comes close to Unix is Linux (not sure about OSX).
 
  • #22
ranger said:
Not really though. A command line based OS is not like Unix just becuase of the command line. Its methodology is far different. The only OS that comes close to Unix is Linux (not sure about OSX).

With the exception of multitasking, I don't think the methadology is all that different.
Having worked with both, many of the commands and internal functions seem much the same.

Somewhere along the line I seem to recall that UNIX(LINUX), CPM(obsolete for years) and DOS all have roots in IBMs VM operating system.
 
  • #23
NoTime said:
With the exception of multitasking, I don't think the methadology is all that different.
Having worked with both, many of the commands and internal functions seem much the same.

Somewhere along the line I seem to recall that UNIX(LINUX), CPM(obsolete for years) and DOS all have roots in IBMs VM operating system.

I'll counter that by saying, having worked with both, the internal functions and commands arent the same :biggrin: Just a quick example, Unix manages its physical devices and hardware components in a different way than DOS- things such as mounting, the /dev directory, physical storage mediums treated as "real" directories.

Unix (1970's) was developed in Bell Labs(AT&T) using the C programming language. Linux was developed in 1991 (independent of IBM). I can only recall that MS DOS, OS/2, and Windows being developed as a result of IBM. IBM had nothing to do with Unix and Linux.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Ubuntu for Christians? Ubuntu has gone a long way since the "porn distro" or was it "nude distro," I can't remember. Ahh, those great ubuntu wallpapers, best time of the month :biggrin:
 
  • #25
mattmns said:
Ubuntu for Christians? Ubuntu has gone a long way since the "porn distro" or was it "nude distro," I can't remember. Ahh, those great ubuntu wallpapers, best time of the month :biggrin:

They had a "porn distro"? wow! (And I promise I won't go looking for it). They also have Ubuntu Satanic Edition
 
  • #26
:smile: Nah, it was a monthly wallpaper that featured semi-nude models. They stopped using it 2 years ago or so. Because of this some people jokingly called Ubuntu the "porn distro"

*cough* search google for "ubuntu calendar" and you can find some of the wallpapers.
 
  • #27
ranger said:
I'll counter that by saying, having worked with both, the internal functions and commands arent the same :biggrin: Just a quick example, Unix manages its physical devices and hardware components in a different way than DOS- things such as mounting, the /dev directory, physical storage mediums treated as "real" directories.

Unix (1970's) was developed in Bell Labs(AT&T) using the C programming language. Linux was developed in 1991 (independent of IBM). I can only recall that MS DOS, OS/2, and Windows being developed as a result of IBM. IBM had nothing to do with Unix and Linux.

I did find this :biggrin:
ironically enough, DOS 2.0 eclipsed CP/M largely because Microsoft's co-founder Paul Allen merged in Unix features including subdirectories and pipes).
 
  • #28
IBM was, indeed, fairly late to the UNIX game. They stayed true to the mainframe way until the mid 80s, when they decided to hire several UNIX vendors (Bull and INTERACTIVE UNIX Systems) to integrate various bits of SVR3 and BSD 4.2 and 4.3, where the end result was AIX.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
ranger said:
Not really though. A command line based OS is not like Unix just becuase of the command line. Its methodology is far different. The only OS that comes close to Unix is Linux (not sure about OSX).

OS X is actually much closer to UNIX than Linux is. OS X derives from NeXTSTEP, which was essentially Mach plus various bits from BSD 4.2 or 4.3, and thus can be traced back to one of the Bell Labs' releases of UNIX. Linux, on the other hand, shares no code with any of the derivatives of Bell Labs' UNIX.
 
  • #30
mattmns said:
*cough* search google for "ubuntu calendar" and you can find some of the wallpapers.
cough:or search the top-rated wallpapers at gnome-look.org:cough :wink:
 
  • #31
ranger said:
Not really though. A command line based OS is not like Unix just becuase of the command line. Its methodology is far different. The only OS that comes close to Unix is Linux (not sure about OSX).

Mac OSX is Unix, so it is closer than Linux. The windowing system is aqua, but under the hood it is a Unix, in fact it is open sourced Darwin.

http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html
 
Last edited:
  • #32
NoTime said:
With the exception of multitasking, I don't think the methadology is all that different.
Having worked with both, many of the commands and internal functions seem much the same.

Somewhere along the line I seem to recall that UNIX(LINUX), CPM(obsolete for years) and DOS all have roots in IBMs VM operating system.

Sorry that isn't true, you still have crossover now with some of the shell command, like cd for example. The whole file system is structured different, the kernal is different, Dos is not a mulituser enviroment, Unix is, security wasnt implemeted in dos, it was in Unix.

Yes M$ stole some part of the Unix code, but its a far streach from saying its a variant of Unix.
 
  • #33
Anttech said:
Sorry that isn't true, you still have crossover now with some of the shell command, like cd for example. The whole file system is structured different, the kernal is different, Dos is not a mulituser enviroment, Unix is, security wasnt implemeted in dos, it was in Unix.

Yes M$ stole some part of the Unix code, but its a far streach from saying its a variant of Unix.
It's my opinion is that if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...:smile:

In the sense that you mean, that actual original code was imported then ok.
Under your concept the generic Intel machine bears no relation to the original IBM PC since the BIOS was developed independently to avoid copywrite restrictions.
The new BIOS was, however, developed to work identically.

As far as the file system goes.
When DOS 2.0 was released a 5meg HDD cost as much as a new car.
That they added the UNIX structures to the existing floppy drive access system for some compatibility, was IMO, more of a concession to the existing user base.
 
  • #34
It's my opinion is that if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
Its a cow pretending to be a duck? :smile:
 
  • #35
Anttech said:
Its a cow pretending to be a duck? :smile:

:smile: Put your favorite UNIX(LINUX) core on a 4.5mhz x86 processor with 64k of memory and tell me which one is that :smile:

Every tool has its place.
Just because you have a hammer doesn't mean that everything is a nail :smile:
 
  • #36
NoTime said:
:smile: Put your favorite UNIX(LINUX) core on a 4.5mhz x86 processor with 64k of memory and tell me which one is that :smile:

Every tool has its place.
Just because you have a hammer doesn't mean that everything is a nail :smile:

Do you enjoy saying silly things that make absolutely no sense?

You might care to visit Wikipedia or Google for "UNIX history" before you make such blatantly incorrect statements and inferrences. It seems everything you've said in this thread is nonsense.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
NoTime said:
:smile: Put your favorite UNIX(LINUX) core on a 4.5mhz x86 processor with 64k of memory and tell me which one is that :smile:
...
:smile:

Whats a Unix or Linux core? These are new terms for me.
 
  • #38
graphic7 said:
Do you enjoy saying silly things that make absolutely no sense?
So what am I saying that doesn't make sense to you?

graphic7 said:
You might care to visit Wikipedia or Google for "UNIX history" before you make such blatantly incorrect statements and inferrences. It seems everything you've said in this thread is nonsense.
I was writing software long before UNIX in any form existed.
Or for that matter the time sharing systems from where the idea for UNIX originated.
Just what is it that you think is so wrong?
 
  • #39
ranger said:
Whats a Unix or Linux core? These are new terms for me.

In this case core = OS.
 
  • #40
Anything that meets my requirements. Anything from WinBlows to Linux :)
 
  • #41
I am a happy full time Linux user since 2000. I have tried several Linux flavors until 2004 when I found Gentoo Linux, which is my OS at home and work. I also use it in a small cluster.
 
  • #42
I have a tendency to remain foolishly loyal to companies (I nearly followed Nintendo into the GameCube era, until I had the sense to try something better). In the spirit of learning from my mistakes, I've decided to branch off of Windows and, after partitioning my drive, try Linux for a bit.

I've noticed that many Linux users seem very proud, if not pompous (kidding!) about their choice of OS. However, most of these users know much more about computers than I do, so I tend to treat their comments with some dignity...

What is it, precisely, about Linux that makes it "so much better"? I understand that Linux is open source - which I'm a huge fan of...but let's face it, I won't be customizing much of anything, and I'm not running a server. Are there any PC desktop user benefits to using Linux over Windows? Which distro would you recommend? Does a particular download come with a GUI installed, or do I choose one after downloading, or can I have more than one on my machine?
 
  • #43
SynapticSelf said:
I have a tendency to remain foolishly loyal to companies (I nearly followed Nintendo into the GameCube era, until I had the sense to try something better). In the spirit of learning from my mistakes, I've decided to branch off of Windows and, after partitioning my drive, try Linux for a bit.
Be loyal to some company might be a bad idea. Some friends who used to program in Fortran got very upset when HP bought Compac and stopped to produce its Fortran Compac, the best Fortran (in their opinion).

SynapticSelf said:
I've noticed that many Linux users seem very proud, if not pompous (kidding!) about their choice of OS. However, most of these users know much more about computers than I do, so I tend to treat their comments with some dignity...
Learning is an amazing process. All time we are learning, and certainly your friends started from point where you are. Linux knowledge is spread out through several internet pages, forums and communities where you may found answers to your problems with Linux.

SynapticSelf said:
What is it, precisely, about Linux that makes it "so much better"?
Stability, performance, safety, compatibility with several kind of CPU's (from mainframes to palmtops). For me the most important are stability and performance. I can run simulations for months without worry about Blue Screen of Death :approve: Another important point is that I run Linux since 2000 and I did NOT get any virus or trojans until now.

SynapticSelf said:
I understand that Linux is open source - which I'm a huge fan of...but let's face it, I won't be customizing much of anything, and I'm not running a server. Are there any PC desktop user benefits to using Linux over Windows? Which distro would you recommend? Does a particular download come with a GUI installed, or do I choose one after downloading, or can I have more than one on my machine?
If you don't want customize things you may be fine using pre-compiled Linux flavors like Fedora, Mandriva or ArchLinux. Is up to you! Read something about them at http://www.linux.org" or at any webpage you may found. After installing and using it for while you can realize if it has some benefit for you. Usually such distros comes with several GUI's that you can choose.
If you need some help to find equivalent softwares to Linux just ask in appropriated thread and I and other Linux users may help you.

Cheers, Luís
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Windows Backup, Thunderbird and Malware
Replies
7
Views
2K
Grad School Flow Simulation PC Build
Replies
2
Views
2K
What is causing high disk usage and slowing down my Windows 10 computer?
Replies
9
Views
3K
MHB Using Linux? Mac or PC - Which Architecture Runs Better?
Replies
13
Views
3K
Linux/Windows Dual Boot password problem
Replies
2
Views
2K
What does it take to be a LINUX user?
Replies
18
Views
4K
Finding the Right OS for a PhD Student: Making the Best Choice
2
Replies
60
Views
10K
Is remote desktop connection affected by security DLL functions in Windows?
Replies
1
Views
3K
Computer Building a Desktop Computer for Math/Physics
Replies
36
Views
12K
Why Linux? Not so sure as I used to be
Replies
12
Views
6K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top