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
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
42 replies · 11K views
ranger said:
Not really though. A command line based OS is not like Unix just because 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:
Physics news on Phys.org
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 environment, 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.
 
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 environment, 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.
 
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:
 
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:
 
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:
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.
 
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?
 
ranger said:
Whats a Unix or Linux core? These are new terms for me.

In this case core = OS.
 
Anything that meets my requirements. Anything from WinBlows to Linux :)
 
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.
 
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?
 
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: