Finding the Right OS for a PhD Student: Making the Best Choice

[enorbet]

Thank you for your anecdotal experience. I'd like to point out that while Windows and Mac are, by design, rather slow to make deep changes, Unix based systems, especially Linux is changing and growing very rapidly, so much so that many new people find the number of options alarming and/or confusing. That doesn't change the fact that any anecdotal information about the state of Linux requires a sort of "timestamp" because what was true last year is often very changed this year.

To be clear, I am not trying to say anyone is better than another, but I think it important to properly document current states. S0...

My experience with the three operating systems:

Windows: Designed to be easy for IT departments to be able to manage. Windows is the easiest to use for both the unsophisticated user and the power user as a result of their corporate focus. It also has the most software support. It is very popular in the corporate world.

I'm afraid this is opinion and not factual. While it is true that Windows is the de facto standard on many more workstations than other systems, this came from the ground up, desktop deployment, NOT from the top down.

(See Graph quoted below in the attached pdf from Wikipedia Market Share by Category - incidentally converted from rich txt to pdf and uploaded from my Linux box)

OSX: Designed to be easy to use by unsophisticated users for basic tasks. Can be quite complicated to accomplish many power user tasks. It has some commercial software support (nothing like Windows) and can, in theory, run any Unix program that Linux can, though the reality of installing open-source Unix software on the Mac can be almost as difficult as getting it to run on Windows. It is very popular in academia and especially astronomy and computer science. The biggest disadvantage, at least in my opinion, is limited hardware support and being "legally" stuck with overly expensive proprietary hardware.

This is both no longer true (and for quite some time) and overstated. It came from pre-OSX times, well over 10 years ago, when Apple systems were essentially embedded with extremely limited hardware support and of only enterprise quality hardware, like SCSI hard drives. While the public perception at large, considerably boosted by Microsoft propaganda, was this equated to "overpriced" the fact remains that at that time IDE hard drives commonly had 1 year warranties and SCSIs outperformed them in every way possible (even simultaneous access to multiple drives) and had 5 year guarantees. The "juice" was/is well worth the "squeeze" unless you are one that is satisfied with "just barely good enough, but cheap".

In addition to the fields you mentioned you surprisingly left out Multimedia Production and Editing. Pro Tools is THE standard Digital Audio Workstation software application. Star Wars and countless other major movies, the most in fact, are produced and edited on Macs than any other device even today, though Linux is making a dent these days. Newspapers, Magazines, others way too many to mention rely more on Mac than any other.

Adobe has never been alone in commercial professional software development and they are presently losing ground to both Mac and Linux in every category.

Linux: The big advantages here are that it is completely free and completely customizable, plus it has the best support for ease of installing open source, free software. Many open source software titles can be installed by a simple command on the terminal. You can scale it down to run on 16 mb of ram or scale it up to run on a supercomputer. You can install a slick desktop OS similar to Windows or Mac OS or not install any GUI at all.

Unfortunately, basic tasks can be very difficult to configure, it has little tech support available, there is a minimal amount of commercial software available and it can be difficult to install. It generally has not made much inroads as a desktop OS because, while it is adequate, it is hardly up to snuff with OSX or Windows as a desktop workstation.

The above information, while correct in part, is either dated or shallow, or both. While I prefer commandline, the vast majority of Linux distributions have Software Centers, where 10's of 1000's of applications, upgrades, drivers... you name it, are available with a single mouseclick.

One can install many different desktops and choose on-the-fly which to use, or one desktop like KDE which has features like Activities where a user can setup an interface specific to any type of work or , well... activity, and switch between them with a single click. You can access your home desktop, run applications on it, install software on it or from it, with your smartphone.

There is much, much more but this should be enough to demonstrate that a desktop "similar to Windows or Mac" is ill-informed and condescending at best. There is literally NOTHING a windows desktop environment can do that a Linux DE cannot do and much that Linux desktops can do that are impossible on Windows. Your assessment of "hardly up to snuff" is dated and "quaint" at best.

In addition the support through documentation, forums, chats, is, if anything superior to both Mac and Windows if only because it's users know more about how the system works. The amount of misinformation on windows forums is less than useless it is often destructive. There exists a thread right here on this forum in which a member was apparently told by someone supposedly "in the business" to delete his Registry! 0_0

Much of how Windows and Mac systems work is hidden by design to keep people from making destructive mistakes. This has the side effect of preventing, or at least impeding, instructive help.

The bottom line though is that all three operating systems will work fine for most OS tasks. The questions are, how much do you want to learn, how much are you willing to pay, how much admin time are you committed to, and do you need to run certain software packages. Obviously, if you want a UNIX environment, Windows is not an option, and if you want to run the full version of a program like Office, OSX and Linux are not options.

Now we are to the only remaining "crux of the biscuit". While the quality and compatibility of such as LibreOffice is so good that many even prefer it's more intuitive default interface, Microsoft still chooses to break compatibility with some types of Excel and Word formats to thwart that compatibility. Unfortunately for Microsoft and it's users this commonly means that documents you save in some former formats will no longer be readable by your "new and improved" Office.

So it is true that this can be a deal breaker for some people making even trying Linux marginally futile if they are that dependent on certain Office formats, though not all. Unfortunately for information, this too is a changing landscape and AFAIK there is no way to be certain exactly which formats are problematic without just jumping in and giving it a go. This is now easier than ever, partly from what I mentioned before about LiveCDs, but also because Linux/Unix supports more different kinds of hardware than any other OpSys that has ever existed, including Windows. There is more software choice than for any other though some see this as a fault.

The deal is, you're really not going to know unless you try some.

 

[KL7AJ]

Hi all,

I am currently a electrical engineering PhD student, and I spend a huge amount of my time on a computer and I plan to do so in the future as well. So, I thought it is wise to look around for another OS to use besides Windows 8, which is tolerable and works but I can't help but think there is something better.

I do some computer coding, I use mathematical software (matlab, labview, python). I think all the programs I use can be used in windows, mac, and linux.

I tried ubuntu, but I gave up after I spent hours and hours trying to install Java correctly. I am a not a computer enthusiast, rather I just want a good system. Do you think it is worth the time to learn how to use a Linux system? Or will Windows suffice just as it always has? I am not necessarily a open source enthusiast, so I will not buy into linux just because it is free. What do think I should use for my operating system? I am not afraid to try a linux distro again or even mac, but I want to be sure that my learning investment is well spent.

I humbly ask for some advice.

I use Linux. You can get a freeware equivalent to Matlab called Octave for Linux. (Takes some serious compiling, but worth it!). Once you have linux, you have a free compiler, which allows you to write C++ programs. And just about every other language has a linux compiler. The only thing I can't do with linux is run Labview...it's about the only reason I still have Windows at all. :)

Eric

 

[vociferous]

I stand by my statements and the empirical evidence backs it up. If Linux Windows managers were as easy to deploy and use as the Mac OS and Windows, they would be dominating the market right now because they are free. Even if a corporate license for Windows Enterprise were only $50 per workstation, switching to Linux in a 10,000 employee company could save a business about a quarter of a million dollars every few years. The fact that they have not done so is very telling, as is the fact that Linux has not been able to penetrate the consumer market.

Also, there are many things that Linux cannot do that Windows and the Mac OS can. Linux cannot legally play DVD's, MP3's, or bluray movies in the United States and many other countries. As far as I know, there is no legal software available for Linux that plays blurays or DVD's. Those require royalty licenses and the only software capable of playing them is violative of both civil law (failure to pay royalties per software license) and criminal law (distributing tools designed to break encryption).

As a result, Linux is distributed without these abilities and the only way to enable them are by often esoteric and legally murky means. That is not very friendly to the end user.

Ten years ago, many Linux evangelists were claiming that Linux is an easy to use desktop OS competitive with windows and OSX and it was only a matter of time before they dominated the competition. In that time, actual adoption of Linux has remained pretty much flat fluctuating around about 1% of all web traffic while the only real changes were small but steady increases for OSX. Most of them are pretty quiet now. Despite many advances in Linux, it still cannot be given away to most users.

The empirical evidence speaks quite clearly. Linux desktop is a niche operating system that is well suited for specific tasks and users, but in general, is not competitive with OSX or Windows on the desktop. This is hard data, not anecdote.

There was a time when I thought that Linux had a real chance as a desktop or laptop OS, but the empirical evidence shows that it does not. It simply cannot compete with the resources that large companies like Apple and Microsoft command. It still has its uses, especially on custom or embedded systems and among technical and scientific computing users, although even those seem to be mostly preferring OSX to Linux these days.

Most places you will see Linux server rooms and embedded devices these days is in poor countries that cannot afford slicker products or in computer labs at universities in the science and engineering departments, but even there, with so few faculty using Linux on their own workstations and laptops, you have to wonder if it is more of a cost-cutting measure to avoid equipping labs with expensive, proprietary OSX machines.

 

[KL7AJ]

I stand by my statements and the empirical evidence backs it up. If Linux Windows managers were as easy to deploy and use as the Mac OS and Windows, they would be dominating the market right now because they are free. Even if a corporate license for Windows Enterprise were only $50 per workstation, switching to Linux in a 10,000 employee company could save a business about a quarter of a million dollars every few years. The fact that they have not done so is very telling, as is the fact that Linux has not been able to penetrate the consumer market.

Also, there are many things that Linux cannot do that Windows and the Mac OS can. Linux cannot legally play DVD's, MP3's, or bluray movies in the United States and many other countries. As far as I know, there is no legal software available for Linux that plays blurays or DVD's. Those require royalty licenses and the only software capable of playing them is violative of both civil law (failure to pay royalties per software license) and criminal law (distributing tools designed to break encryption).

As a result, Linux is distributed without these abilities and the only way to enable them are by often esoteric and legally murky means. That is not very friendly to the end user.

Ten years ago, many Linux evangelists were claiming that Linux is an easy to use desktop OS competitive with windows and OSX and it was only a matter of time before they dominated the competition. In that time, actual adoption of Linux has remained pretty much flat fluctuating around about 1% of all web traffic while the only real changes were small but steady increases for OSX. Most of them are pretty quiet now. Despite many advances in Linux, it still cannot be given away to most users.

The empirical evidence speaks quite clearly. Linux desktop is a niche operating system that is well suited for specific tasks and users, but in general, is not competitive with OSX or Windows on the desktop. This is hard data, not anecdote.

There was a time when I thought that Linux had a real chance as a desktop or laptop OS, but the empirical evidence shows that it does not. It simply cannot compete with the resources that large companies like Apple and Microsoft command. It still has its uses, especially on custom or embedded systems and among technical and scientific computing users, although even those seem to be mostly preferring OSX to Linux these days.

Most places you will see Linux server rooms and embedded devices these days is in poor countries that cannot afford slicker products or in computer labs at universities in the science and engineering departments, but even there, with so few faculty using Linux on their own workstations and laptops, you have to wonder if it is more of a cost-cutting measure to avoid equipping labs with expensive, proprietary OSX machines.

Hi Vociferous:

I think you also need to remember the market. For business applications where everyone is allergic to change, Windows has a clear advantage. For scientific types who are as likely to be writing their own software as not, the OS is actually pretty irrelevant. Someone who's used to command line entry isn't going to be too thrown by a different GUI!

Eric

 

[vociferous]

Hi Vociferous:

I think you also need to remember the market. For business applications where everyone is allergic to change, Windows has a clear advantage. For scientific types who are as likely to be writing their own software as not, the OS is actually pretty irrelevant. Someone who's used to command line entry isn't going to be too thrown by a different GUI!

Eric

It's not just that people are "allergic to change". Microsoft has made a point of ensuring backwards compatibility. On the 32 bit version of Windows 8, you can still run many DOS programs written back in the 1980's.

Linux is fragmented, so even across a single kernel, one binary might run perfectly while another is useless. There is no central installation package, so while one install might go smoothly, another might fail for extremely incomprehensible reasons, and every new version of Linux has a strong potential to break old programs.

If you're willing to put in the time to maintain your installation and work around its inconsistencies, then any OS will work fine for you. In theory, you can compile open-source programs to run on any OS you choose, even if a binary is not available, and certainly major distributions of Linux have the easiest time installing GNU software. But, you have to consider the other tasks you do.

If you just have a workstation in the lab preconfigured with all the software you need, then you're probably okay whatever your OS. If you use the device for more varied uses, especially laptops you use to travel with, you'll probably find that OSX and Windows "just work" for a variety of consumer tasks.

 

[nsaspook]

World Domination takes time.
The servers first then the mobile market then ...

I'd like to say that I knew this would happen, that it's all part of the plan for world domination.
Linus - 1999

 

[vociferous]

World Domination takes time.
The servers first then the mobile market then ...

The mobile market is an interesting one, because Google can throw as much money at Android as Microsoft and Apple can throw at their OS's.

If a company the size of Google made a similar effort at creating a Linux-based OS (heck, it wouldn't even have to be open source, it could just be something that ran on top of the Linux kernel similar to how the Mac OS runs on top of their own closed-source port of F-BSD) I could see it being extremely competitive.

I just do not see a company doing that in the foreseeable future. Google's dabbled in it with their Chrome OS, but the cost of entry for serious competition to Windows or Mac on the desktop seems to be a bad business strategy.

Vista cost Microsoft billions of dollars to develop, probably something similar to the cost of the Manhattan project or an Apollo mission.

It's hard for volunteer software developers to compete with that kind of budget. It's not impossible, and what Linux has been able to accomplish is very impressive, but right now it's like a volunteer symphony competing with a highly paid professional one.

 

[nsaspook]

The mobile influence in computing is driving Windows into a direction that is causing it to change it's development strategy. Windows 8 is a good example. It's a tablet OS (that some of the latest updates have made keyboard usable) that many traditional desktop mouse/keyboard users find strange and unwieldy for structured use in a productivity tasked commercial/industrial setting where computers are not hand-held, hands are gloved or screens are protected. They are very late in this side of the business (releasing products for free to gain share) and are playing a game of catchup by making the desktop look like a mobile device instead of a traditional computer. Where Windows has a advantage on the desktop today is in the management of thousands of locked-down Microsoft Office desktops controlled by a centralized IS core that can watch every keystroke if needed. I don't see them losing much share in that but the XP style desktop is dead and the new 'apps' devices world is the future for casual users where 7/24 networking converts all devices to variations on a theme where the Windows OS is the same as the Linux OS for most users.

 

[enorbet]

<snip>

Most places you will see Linux server rooms and embedded devices these days is in poor countries that cannot afford slicker products or in computer labs at universities in the science and engineering departments, but even there, with so few faculty using Linux on their own workstations and laptops, you have to wonder if it is more of a cost-cutting measure to avoid equipping labs with expensive, proprietary OSX machines.

In light of this over-the-top statement it appears you didn't look at the pdf, so here, attached, is a .jpg so you and others can see a current distribution of system deployment.


Please bear in mind that at least 3 big players are now involved, RedHat, Google and IBM. Last year IBM invested over $1,000,000,000 in Linux ( http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/41926.wss ) and has all but abandoned their products like AIX. This and the takeover hosted by RedHat and Google through the use of containers and cgroups is not making "Linux Evangelists" very happy but it is succeeding rapidly. Google CoreOS for just the beginning.

I fully respect your right to your opinion but I strongly suspect your experience is dated and not at all current (perhaps not even post Ubuntu's launch 10 years ago) and I find your faith in the marketplace as a measure of quality, naive. Just because Linux is yet a niche system, it does not logically follow that this is because it is harder or in anyway less good.

As for your correct concerns about legality issues in some countries regarding DVDs, I think it is safe to assume that Google, RedHat, and IBM will have no problems brushing that aside, now that they are invested.

 

[harborsparrow]

...the XP style desktop is dead and the new 'apps' devices world is the future for casual users...

I for one (and many others, I assure you) are using Windows 8 identically to how we used Windows 7, merely by adding the StartIsBack utility (cost $3.00 for 2 machines) which restores all the same user interface from Windows 7. Except now, Windows boots under one minute and handles memory much better.

If you are frustrated by Windows 8, add StartIsBack and you'll be pleased.

 

[thankz]

my pick would be windows 7 running VMware running some flavor of debian.

 

[nsaspook]

I for one (and many others, I assure you) are using Windows 8 identically to how we used Windows 7, merely by adding the StartIsBack utility (cost $3.00 for 2 machines) which restores all the same user interface from Windows 7. Except now, Windows boots under one minute and handles memory much better.

If you are frustrated by Windows 8, add StartIsBack and you'll be pleased.

I use classic shell instead on the few machines with 8. It seems completely crazy to have to do this if they spent billions making the OS better (redecorated). I think this happened because someone forgot that usability is a function of simple patterns and repetition with minimal energy expended. It's better to have a few very good way of doing something rather than many poorly implemented less efficient ways of the same thing that look pretty on a small screen focus but wallow like a whale on a large display surface where the UI seems to force you to dart your concentration across the screen several times to confirm the wanted action has happened.

The current Windows reminds me of this: http://www.rane.com/pdf/old/pi14dat.pdf

 

[robphy]

Personally, I do like Windows--in spite of some of its annoyances.
I might have switched to a Mac if they had something like a TabletPC, but they don't.

I do like unix for some things... but not enough to switch over.
One can do some unix-like and X11-type things using http://www.cygwin.com/.

I can open a bash shell and can run bash, perl, and python scripts that I've written to help me do things in Windows (where .bat files aren't good enough).
I can run them from a command shell or invoke it with a shortcut (or filetype menu entry via a registry hack) or even a mouse/stylus gesture using http://www.tcbmi.com/strokeit/ or http://www.strokesplus.com/ .

These can be helpful when I spend a lot of my time using the stylus on the TabletPC [while lecturing], with the keyboard out of the way.

Another nice scripting-like tool for Windows is http://www.autohotkey.com/ .
This one can work with the GUI.

So, some shortcomings of Windows can be handled with such tools.
(Are there equivalents in OSX or linux?)

 

[vociferous]

In light of this over-the-top statement it appears you didn't look at the pdf, so here, attached, is a .jpg so you and others can see a current distribution of system deployment.


Please bear in mind that at least 3 big players are now involved, RedHat, Google and IBM. Last year IBM invested over $1,000,000,000 in Linux ( http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/41926.wss ) and has all but abandoned their products like AIX. This and the takeover hosted by RedHat and Google through the use of containers and cgroups is not making "Linux Evangelists" very happy but it is succeeding rapidly. Google CoreOS for just the beginning.

I fully respect your right to your opinion but I strongly suspect your experience is dated and not at all current (perhaps not even post Ubuntu's launch 10 years ago) and I find your faith in the marketplace as a measure of quality, naive. Just because Linux is yet a niche system, it does not logically follow that this is because it is harder or in anyway less good.

As for your correct concerns about legality issues in some countries regarding DVDs, I think it is safe to assume that Google, RedHat, and IBM will have no problems brushing that aside, now that they are invested.

Redhat and IBM are primarily in the business of making Servers, not desktops, so that is where they are putting their money. Google also invests in servers, and to a lesser degree, it's android operating system. None of them are investing heavily in the desktop market.

Look at your own links. IBM is investing in power systems, something that sits in a server room, not the x86 systems most consumers use. Your chart still shows Linux with about 1% of the desktop market.

I have been using Linux since I was a teen (that's over a decade ago, how time flies). At home I have an Ubuntu server running on top of my Windows 2012 server so that I can ssh to it to run certain programs. However, I don't pretend that I am the average computer user. They stick with the slicker, more user friendly OS's for a reason.

 

[Transistor]

You better use mac os

 

[enorbet]

@robphy - Re: Tablet support in Mac and Linux
Linux has excellent support for Tablets including screen rotation and gestures. Some distributions come with it enabled by default. A few require some minor tweaking to get your specific tablet working just the way you want.

I don't know much in the way of specifics about Mac so I don't know how easy it is to enable support but technically since OS-X is a *nix kernel with loadable modules/drivers I doubt it is difficult. However this may change very soon because of this - http://www.modbook.com/

 

[enorbet]

@vociferous - If you are using any current Linux desktop how can you say "slicker, more friendly" with Linux having multiple switchable desktops (1 click away) , snap, smartphone accessibility and concurrent users, KDE Activities, 3D desktop a la Compiz, Kwin etc. let alone complete control over styles, fonts, sizes, mouse activity, and so much more that is literally 1-2 clicks away?

Regarding IBM, RedHat, and Google - Granted their sights are set on servers, in fact very large servers where it is now possible to deploy 10s of 1000s of workstation clones or updates with a single command because of the advances made in containers. These same containers are just as useful in desktop systems. One example is that even though most distributions have regular release cycles, containers make it possible to have exact releases and forever banish incremental upgrades. While it has become quite rare for upgrades and added software to break any part of modern *nixes, containers can fine tune and prevent this altogether.

Personally I am old school and don't welcome the deep changes coming to Linux since it seems the first steps in locking it down. My personal opinion doesn't prevent me from seeing that this is "big doings" and is bound to have a powerful impact on ALL computing, including the Desktop.

It is my opinion that at some time in the future Operating Systems will be so ubiquitous, free and flexible that nobody will care about them. It will all be about what's on top, and there, at least some modicum of choice will rule, not the near iron fist control that MS exerts.

I am curious as to whether you have ever read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" since it was written in 1996 and has yet to be falsified, only strengthened as to the variety, quality, and speed of improvement of Open Source software vs/ Proprietary and this despite the stranglehold the MS Monoploy has which although it borrows from Linux, actively thwarts Linux, with Steve Ballmer referring to it as "that virus".

Once other "Big Boys" are in the mix, much of that will either cease or be inconsequential.

 

[vociferous]

@robphy - Re: Tablet support in Mac and Linux
Linux has excellent support for Tablets including screen rotation and gestures. Some distributions come with it enabled by default. A few require some minor tweaking to get your specific tablet working just the way you want.

I don't know much in the way of specifics about Mac so I don't know how easy it is to enable support but technically since OS-X is a *nix kernel with loadable modules/drivers I doubt it is difficult. However this may change very soon because of this - http://www.modbook.com/

From my experience (at least with Ubuntu) tablet support was terrible.

Once you install the proper drivers, any Windows PC since XP Tablet edition just works, not additional steps needed (other than to be sure the tablet features are enabled in the programs menue). The handwriting recognition on Windows reads my chicken scratch quite well while Ubuntu did not even install it by default and what handwriting recognition software I could find for Linux was pretty unusable. Even worse, while Windows set up my Wacom digitizer correctly, Ubuntu treated it just like a mouse, so even doing basic functions like using the eraser were impossible. The bottom line, my experience with modern Ubuntu on a tablet PC was even worse than Microsoft's 14 year old XP support for tablet, and MS has made a lot of strides in the past decade and a half.

OS X has no support for tablets. Getting it to function correctly on a tablet (which is not Apple-supported hardware) would be very difficult.

The empirical evidence is overwhelming. The Linux desktop experience just is not competitive with Windows and OSX. Linux desktop penetration has stayed around 1% for that reason. The experience is so inferior for the average user that they cannot even give it away for free. Linux's greatest strength is that it is customization and flexible, but it is also its greatest weakness. Linux is fragmented. It lacks basic features like a centralized installer. Each major distro uses its own installation routines, which forces most commercial software to write their own installer, often which must be run from a terminal (not particularly user friendly). While OSX and Windows installs are usually pretty straightforward across all systems, an install that works perfectly on one version will often balk on another.

The only way I see Linux succeeding on the desktop is:

1) A major backer like Google willing to invest at least a billion a year in development.

2) Probably a proprietary windows manager built on top of an open operating system (instead of X and KDE/Gnome/et cetera), similar to how the OSX gui was built on top of F-BSD without relying on the often unstable and buggy X-windows server and their associated managers.

The fragmented approach to different windows managers, different libraries, different distros, et cetera just is not conducive to large market share for Linux on the desktop. It's what Linux evangalists and hackers love about the OS though, but it's just not going to succeed in the mainstream marketplace as it is. You need some real money and some real unity and quality control.

 

[nsaspook]

The fragmented approach to different windows managers, different libraries, different distros, et cetera just is not conducive to large market share for Linux on the desktop. It's what Linux evangalists and hackers love about the OS though, but it's just not going to succeed in the mainstream marketplace as it is. You need some real money and some real unity and quality control.

I agree with most of that, so I guess the server, mobile and embedded markets will have to do for now. The Linux desktop is evolving so fast and in so many ways it's impossible to keep a scorecard. I've been using Debian with IceWM on servers or KDE on desktops for ages as I see most of what's new as just eye-candy for what I do.

 

[enorbet]

<snip> Linux is fragmented. It lacks basic features like a centralized installer. Each major distro uses its own installation routines, which forces most commercial software to write their own installer, often which must be run from a terminal (not particularly user friendly). While OSX and Windows installs are usually pretty straightforward across all systems, an install that works perfectly on one version will often balk on another.
<snip>
The fragmented approach to different windows managers, different libraries, different distros, et cetera just is not conducive to large market share for Linux on the desktop.

Not only do I still suspect your experience is with an older linux desktop (care to reveal what your latest version is? and perhaps how much time on it?) but I also suspect your experience is quite limited. Either that or for some reason you choose to appear unbiased but actually spread FUD.

The most glaring error/untruth is "centralized application installer". Just where is Windows' single application to manage app installs? Surely you don't mean *.exe's? They just mean anyone can package anything, including massive amounts of malware, in a binary that will run on Windows.

Exe's aren't required to put information in The Registry (though MS would prefer they do despite the monstrosity it is that causes degradation of performance often to the point of having to fresh install to remove all the cruft) and they aren't even required to install to "C:\Program Files". So where is this centralization?

Since you claim to use Ubuntu, let's talk about it. Are you aware of Ubuntu Software Center? No terminal work is required. 1 click and 10's of 1000's of applications are available in an organized fashion requiring 1 click to install. Version 3, by the way, includes commercial software. Windows, not any version, has anything even remotely close.

As for fragmentation, this certainly doesn't apply to application installation for several reasons. There are 2 main package managers, employing *.deb and *.rpm (Debian-based and RedHat-based respectively) and the relatively non-managed *.src. Almost all distributions can convert from one to the other with built-in applications. The difference between them has become so slight as to barely matter anymore, partly thanks to the aforementioned containers. It is neither time-consuming nor costly for people or companies to provide the three, and proof of that is they really don't have to since any distribution can create any package format from *.src. They choose to, if they do, for convenience.

Different libraries? What are you talking about? The only different libraries are essentially the same as Windows according to version such as 32bit vs/ 64 bit, which for most people means both are installed.

Other than that, there is only GTK(Gnome) vs/ QT(KDE), mere desktop choices, both of which can easily handle the other, although GTK has been losing ground of late. This isn't fragmentation this is choice. You can choose to install (lets use Ubuntu again) the more GTK based Ubuntu or the QT/KDE based Kubuntu, and/or you can have both in one, and simply choose which to run upon login, all the while enjoying both GTK and QT apps running in either whether you do or not. These are part of a whole, not at all separate as "fragments" as you would have us believe.

Finally, I have demonstrated with links that Linux is approaching a deeper unity as a result of systemd and containers. So while this evolution is along the lines of your "concerns" it is already here and growing rapidly. You think it is necessary. I don't. Regardless of what either of us thinks, it is all over but the shouting. It's here, fait accompli.

Incidentally there are numerous videos on YouTube and elsewhere of the "man on the street" variety where the crowd is told "This is the upcoming version of Windows. Would you like to try it and give us your considered opinion?" It is in truth Linux and as long as people are told it is not Windows, most like it and say they applaud the upgrade. How's that for empirical?

Just for the record. I'm not saying Linux is going to supplant Windows anytime soon. I don't even want it to. I prefer Linux as a more hobbyist, amateur system. I deplore the "Free Windows" concept. All I'm trying to say is that Windows is not superior in performance, flexibility, cost of operation and most any area you care to discuss with the single exception of desktop market share and most of the negativity spread about Linux is just dated and ill-informed, mush of it fomented by MS itself as it did in the past with the then superior Apple and the then superior OS/2.

 

[AlephZero]

The most glaring error/untruth is "centralized application installer". Just where is Windows' single application to manage app installs? Surely you don't mean *.exe's? They just mean anyone can package anything, including massive amounts of malware, in a binary that will run on Windows.

It's called "Windows installer," formerly "Microsoft Installer", hence the file type .msi. Most reputable software uses it, if only because it's easier to do that than reinventing the wheel. Packaging it into a self-installing .exe file just makes it more convenient to use.

Of course you can just copy an executable program to anywhere in the windows file system and run it with its full path name (especially if you switch of User Access Control first!). And you can do exactly the same on Linux if you want. IMO the reason for the lack of malware on Linux is simply that on the average "personal user" Linux box, there's nothing worth stealing.

 

[vociferous]

not only do i still suspect your experience is with an older linux desktop (care to reveal what your latest version is? And perhaps how much time on it?) but i also suspect your experience is quite limited. Either that or for some reason you choose to appear unbiased but actually spread fud.

Currently at home I use Ubuntu server 14.04 to run Unix software that does not have simple stand-alone Windows binaries (and even some that do). I use the same version of Kubuntu running in a VM when they do not work well over ssh X forwarding. I used to use CentOS all the time at school.

Windows has provided centralized installation APIs since Windows NT was first released, and it is highly backwards compatible. Any program that contains a correctly written MSI can be installed and managed by every single version of Windows as Microsoft goes to great pains to ensure backwards compability with older installation APIs.

Each major distribution of Linux has a completely different protocol for managing packages, so most commercial programs contain an ad hoc script. Usually, when you install a third party piece of software on Linux, it is not managed at all by the operating system itself. For instance, if you install Matlab or Mathematica in Windows, it allows you to manage the program directly from the program menu. It uses the operating system to create and manage symbolic links. I've never run into a serious problem installing those on Windows systems.

Not so for Linux. Every distro and even different versions of the same distro are unique. The script must do everything. Sometimes it works well on one linux system and inexplicably balks on another. Sometimes it installs the symbolic links on one system but not another. It does not add a centralized routine for removing or modifying it. You're pretty much on your own.

And yes, all the software that can be installed through the package managers in Linux are great, but they are also limited. If you want to install something on ubuntu that requires more than a simple "apt-get" command, you may want to clear your schedule.

And while the registry has some drawbacks, it has the advantage of being a unified repository that works the same on all versions of windows NT. On the other hand, different Linux installs store different configuration files in different places which often change between versions, confusing programs.

Also, the problems the average user is going to have with Linux are not something that are going to appear in some evangalist video where someone looks at it for a few minutes. The problems are much deeper. Someone puts a DVD in Windows or the MacOS and it just works. Someone puts a DVD in Linux and they have to download a hack that violates Federal law to play it. Things tend to go wrong (from a user experience) much more often with Linux than with OSX and Windows, and when they do, the solution is usually more complicated, more technical and harder to find help with. Windows and Mac OS updates generally go through a pretty extensive quality control test before being released. Sometimes problems do happen, but with Linux updates seem to happen frequently.

I'll leave you with the story of an IT manager I used to know. I used to ask him how often he updated his Linux servers. His answer was never, because they tend to break when updated. He would just run them until they crashed and required an install, because unlike his Windows and Solaris servers, Linux servers would be constantly borked by updates to the point where it was faster just to reinstall the OS on a dozen servers rather than try to figure out the problem.

 

[nsaspook]

I'll leave you with the story of an IT manager I used to know. I used to ask him how often he updated his Linux servers. His answer was never, because they tend to break when updated. He would just run them until they crashed and required an install, because unlike his Windows and Solaris servers, Linux servers would be constantly borked by updates to the point where it was faster just to reinstall the OS on a dozen servers rather than try to figure out the problem.

Now this is complete FUD. In a production environment you don't update unless it's needed. Only a fool updates a productions server when it's not needed and then only after regression testing on a separate test system. Anyone can bork anything if they aren't careful.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=754204
http://www.neowin.net/news/whoops-e...-reformat-request-to-all-of-its-windows-7-pcs
http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/2012/08/06/sccm-task-sequence-blew-up-australias-commbank/

 

[vociferous]

Now this is complete FUD. In a production environment you don't update unless it's needed. Only a fool updates a productions server when it's not needed and then only after regression testing on a separate test system. Anyone can bork anything if they aren't careful.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=754204
http://www.neowin.net/news/whoops-e...-reformat-request-to-all-of-its-windows-7-pcs
http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/2012/08/06/sccm-task-sequence-blew-up-australias-commbank/

Not updating can leave your system vulnerable. Security patches are part of updates and some of them are not applied until the new version of software is released.

 

[enorbet]

<snipped a bunch of utter nonsense because this last paragraph is so revealing of the agenda>

I'll leave you with the story of an IT manager I used to know. I used to ask him how often he updated his Linux servers. His answer was never, because they tend to break when updated. He would just run them until they crashed and required an install, because unlike his Windows and Solaris servers, Linux servers would be constantly borked by updates to the point where it was faster just to reinstall the OS on a dozen servers rather than try to figure out the problem.

Apparently you still have yet to look at the chart on OpSys Market Share as you would have members believe that Linux with a 35% Market Share on Enterprise Servers (compared to 32% Windows) and leaving out the other Unix based balance, and/or the 96% Market Share on Supercomputers, that these multi-BILLION dollar ventures rely on junk that breaks all the time from a simple update. That is utterly laughable.

You also apparently didn't visit CoreOS or look up the nature and value of containers. When all base system incremental updates are disallowed, even viruses and other malware are ruled out as well in any important area. The existing rules and security of a mature OpSys that began in 1969 as a multi-user, networked system are more than sufficient to compartmentalize and handle any incidentals.

This is in sharp contrast to a system that still doesn't allow concurrent users (nor apparently know how to properly handle them) began as a standalone single-user OpSys and only got a TCP/IP stack nearly 30 years after Unix (which Linux inherited from the start) and had user logins with root/admin privileges by default (easily available to any script let alone human hacker) until 2009. These are not my opinions or of some IT guy somewhere of unknown credentials. These are historical facts. I have yet to see one shred of evidence from you. Almost everything is your opinion and/or anecdotal. With your opinion on Linux I find it confusing and doubtful that you really allow Ubuntu anywhere near your PC.

Back on topic: Don't take my word. Don't take anybody's word. It is so easy to see for yourself. Perhaps try -T H I S L I N K-. Even if you're not motivated to download it and boot it, just look at it and see how "not up to snuff" it is. It will likely surprise and delight you, and this is but a portable, temporary system. The full deal is even better.

 

[vociferous]

Apparently you still have yet to look at the chart on OpSys Market Share as you would have members believe that Linux with a 35% Market Share on Enterprise Servers (compared to 32% Windows) and leaving out the other Unix based balance, and/or the 96% Market Share on Supercomputers, that these multi-BILLION dollar ventures rely on junk that breaks all the time from a simple update. That is utterly laughable.

You also apparently didn't visit CoreOS or look up the nature and value of containers. When all base system incremental updates are disallowed, even viruses and other malware are ruled out as well in any important area. The existing rules and security of a mature OpSys that began in 1969 as a multi-user, networked system are more than sufficient to compartmentalize and handle any incidentals.

This is in sharp contrast to a system that still doesn't allow concurrent users (nor apparently know how to properly handle them) began as a standalone single-user OpSys and only got a TCP/IP stack nearly 30 years after Unix (which Linux inherited from the start) and had user logins with root/admin privileges by default (easily available to any script let alone human hacker) until 2009. These are not my opinions or of some IT guy somewhere of unknown credentials. These are historical facts. I have yet to see one shred of evidence from you. Almost everything is your opinion and/or anecdotal. With your opinion on Linux I find it confusing and doubtful that you really allow Ubuntu anywhere near your PC.

Back on topic: Don't take my word. Don't take anybody's word. It is so easy to see for yourself. Perhaps try -T H I S L I N K-. Even if you're not motivated to download it and boot it, just look at it and see how "not up to snuff" it is. It will likely surprise and delight you, and this is but a portable, temporary system. The full deal is even better.

Look, you're a Linux evangelist. I get it. But your fervor for this particular operating system is impacting your ability to discuss the issue objectively. The topic is operating systems for the end-user on a desktop or laptop, not servers. And yes, from all the system administrators I have talked to, Linux does break much more often than Windows or Solaris. It is widely used because businesses see the higher maintenance cost as a trade off for not having to worry about paying for licenses. Also, most of these companies that are sinking millions of dollars into servers that run linux are not using normal builds. They pay a third party company or someone on the inside to create a custom solution which undergoes extensive quality assurance before any changes are made. This stands into stark contrast with a proprietary solution like Microsoft or Oracle where most of the quality assurance is done by the companies that manufacture the software.

These guys are not just slapping in some distro they downloaded and updating as needed. They typically pay a lot of money to work around the flaws in the quality assurance of the various distros. Some of the big boys actually develop their own distro that is not available publicly.

And you accuse me of using anecdote, but I am the only one that has contributed meaningful empirical evidence. The desktop penetration of Linux has stayed around 1%. If Linux's consumer experience were really on-par with Windows and OSX on the desktop, given it's price, you would expect it to be gaining significant market share. When you cannot give something of value away for free to the average man on the street, that speaks volumes to its quality in the eye of the average consumer. Linux desktops are far too fragmented and the Linux OS is far too rooted in ancient server systems from nearly half a century ago to be successful with end-users. Unless someone fixes these basic flaws, I do not see this changing.

That is all I am going to contribute to this subject. You clearly are a very passionate evangelist. My only suggestion would be instead of talking about why people should be using Linux as a desktop OS (when they clearly are not going to), you should put that effort into some of the problems that I (and others) have identified and fixing them, just as a bit of a rundown:

1) Reliance on the buggy X-windows server.

2) Reliance on the buggy KDE and Gnome windows managers.

3) Fragmentation of both the underlying operating system (e.g. Debian versus Redhat) and the higher end user experience.

4) Poor software installation routines for third party binaries (treating user software like system software, not providing for a central installer for linux binaries similar to what Windows has with .msi packages or OS X Installer.app).

5) Limited or buggy driver support for certain hardware (could use a quality assurance program similar to Microsoft that requires signed drivers).

6) Fragmentation of the user desktop experience. The average consumer does not like to have to relearn anything. With Linux, desktops are fragmented by choice in desktop manager and then further fragmented by how that manager is implemented by the distro. After seeing how users rebelled against the evolution of the start menu in Windows 8, it is clear that end-users do not like having to learn a new way to do the same thing. If Linux cannot offer a new, clean, and consistent desktop experience, it is going to turn off users.

7) Fix the situation with proprietary hardware. Linux needs to license software for doing basic consumer tasks such as playing MP3's, DVD's, and blurays and require that it be included on any new non-volume purchase of a computer with Linux preinstalled. Consumers want to put in a blu-ray and have it just work. They don't want to be forced to download a program that violates federal law to do so.

8) Fix the fragmentation of various underlying aspects of the Linux OS, such as the audio system which has over a dozen implementations instead of a single easy to use one like on Windows or OSX.

These are just some of the major flaws which are obvious to me (and others). Given the state of Linux today, I don't see them being fixed unless some major corporation like Google is willing to sink billions into Linux on the Desktop, probably by pulling a Steve Jobs and building a completely new user experience on top of the existing stable Linux core.

 

[enorbet]

@vociferous
OK. One last try. I'm not a Linux evangelist. I have already stated that I'd be happier if Linux stayed more like it used to be, "a mechanic's car" for coders, high level amateurs and hobbyists, rather than trying to become some sort of "free windows".

I have already addressed the other "issues" you list and offered links to show those ideas are either mistaken or out of date. So I'll address the last remaining one which is actually true - the United States' Digital Millennium Copyright Act and how it impacts users. Basically, it doesn't because the law is about copyright protection, which is routinely "broken" by users of all operating systems (with no criminal intent) as well as corporations, who like to use it when it helps them but ignore it when it is "in the way"

Have you ever made a backup copy of a DVD?... not for the purpose of re-selling (which is what the law is trying to prevent), just to insure you don't have to buy another if the kids, or the dog, or some random scratch renders it inoperable? Same law.

Regarding Linux and merely watching legally purchased DVDs it takes one click to download the library libdvdcss and all players just work. Or, for $25 US any Linux user can download and again with one click install Fluendo DVD Player which is compliant and completely legal. Incidentally, for a similar purchase price, there are several companies who sell software for Windows openly on the market to break copyright protection. You might want to ask yourself why these companies are not prosecuted to get a clue as to what the law is actually concerned with.

I respect the right to prosecute those who violate the law for the purpose it was intended to prevent - duplication for the purpose of selling and thereby stealing money from those who worked hard to create the content. Since I have no such intent I have no problem simply watching a DVD I paid for and I never worry that Federal Agents are waiting outside my door to take me off to jail or court.

I am actually sorry you have had some negative experience that soiled your opinion of Linux. I still wonder if you actually use it and why, since you nitpick with minor, outdated or non-existent "faults" but I will take you at your word and wish you luck in the future. After all if nothing else Linux is about options and choices and that includes not using it and choosing something else. Your call. Similarly OP and everyone here is free to make their choices and hopefully they won't do it because of someone who is now proven to disseminate pure FUD, or even someone trying to be objective, but because they tried it for themselves.

The thing here I wonder about most is exactly whom you think you're serving here with all the negativity, other than your own ego. Seriously. To what end? Do you suppose you may prevent someone from some horrible experience? It seems especially ingenuous since you claim to use it yourself. Instead of spending all this energy and effort to knock it down, why not talk about what you like about it that keeps you having it around? At least have some sense of balance.

 

[nsaspook]

Ok, Windows is the King of the desktop but when you need something that just works what do you use?

http://training.linuxfoundation.org...ternational-space-station-for-linux-migration

“We migrated key functions from Windows to Linux because we needed an operating system that was stable and reliable – one that would give us in-house control. So if we needed to patch, adjust or adapt, we could.”

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/so...nt-for-the-higgs-boson-1119595#articleContent

And - putting aside the small matter of building the LHC itself - finding the Higgs was done almost entirely with Linux. Indeed, many of the scientists we've spoken to say it couldn't have been done without it.

 

[harborsparrow]

I'd just like to note that, for 15 years, I've been running Sql Server and IIS on Windows servers--and I've had zero crashes or serious problems. So all this dissing of Windows servers is just silly. These days, the Windows servers are really quite, quite awesome. Linux is cheaper for enterprises (I get a non-profit price for Windows) but the claim that Linux is either more reliable or stable, cheaper to administer, or better performing that Windows servers is very "old school" and frankly out of touch.

 

[enorbet]

I'd just like to note that, for 15 years, I've been running Sql Server and IIS on Windows servers--and I've had zero crashes or serious problems. So all this dissing of Windows servers is just silly. These days, the Windows servers are really quite, quite awesome. Linux is cheaper for enterprises (I get a non-profit price for Windows) but the claim that Linux is either more reliable or stable, cheaper to administer, or better performing that Windows servers is very "old school" and frankly out of touch.

Just for the record I went back and read each and every post here and I don't see "dissing of Windows" either Desktop or Servers. The whole concept of "Ford R0X!, Chevy SUX!" is rather a teenage DTB phenomenon, is it not?

OP asks "what os should I use?" and the overall answer, despite a few "out of touch" detractors is they are all good but complex enough to have both advantages and disadvantages at certain applications.

Additionally, OP asked about this mainly for Desktop use. The only reasons that server versions was brought up was at first for Market Share to counter a statement that "Linux breaks all the time" and to point out that advances in one area, such as containers, translate well and almost always get used in the other.

This is true mainly because Linux is not a distribution. Those are just collections aimed at niches. Linux is a kernel and the base kernel code in a SuperComputer is identical to the kernel in a Server, or a home system, or a phone or an automobile. Only what is selected for support is different and this can be exactly because the kernel is OpenSource and can be customized by the End User.

Stating that Windows cannot match this particular feature is not disrespectful. It's just a fact and one that comes with it's own set of benefits and problems. They all have their own sets of these so I will state it again - No one OpSys, not Linux, not Mac, not Windows, stands head and shoulders above the other in all things. One merely has to determine what is most important to him or her and choose accordingly.

Unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation out there and it is best to realize that if someone says for example, "Macs are overpriced" (a very old piece of fud) you can bet they have never used one and give their comments the weight they deserve.