Linux vs. Windows

Posted by Shasta (AKA The Resident Geek) on Jan 30, 2004 at 16:25

Re: This is the seed that will spawn Big Brother (Measurement)

Re: Linux being the primary target.

I've heard this argument from people who have no experience in Operating Systems. There is a grain of truth there. But you're exaggerating. Linux would become the secondary target. Solaris, the SUN version of Unix, has been out since slightly after the 68000 came out, and many corporations have hundreds of users using Solaris. Why hasn't it become a target?

Re: Linux usability vs. Windows usability.

If the user was willing to take 10 minutes, they could get used to Linux. It took me over 2 years to fully comprehend the GUI of Windows 95. I _still_ don't know all the keyboard shortcuts. Your definition of usability may include "GUI by Fisher Price", "Security by Swiss Cheese", and "Cost by Waldorf Astoria". Unfortunately for Microsoft, my definition of usability includes "My CHOICE of GUI", "Security by Default", and "Cost by Air". It's all a matter of choice, as the popular slashdotism goes: You have the Linux/UNIX choice of "be root" vs. the Windows choice of "reboot". For me it's an obvious decision.

And you just keep on programming your "1337 700|_Z" in Visual Basic and your underground webpages in Visual Studio .NET. Go on using your $699 PhotoShop to create images. Go on paying $199 for an OS upgrade. Go on using your proprietary, binary-file-format, $200 Office XP suite.

Whereas I will be writing my C++ code in Emacs, or Kdevelop if I feel stupid, writing my webpages in Quanta Plus or Emacs, editing images in the GNU Image Manipulation Program (also for windows at, and writing my documents in, or if I'm impatient, Kword, or if I'm really really in a hurry, AbiWord.

Total TCO of Linux: $549 (minus Microsoft tax) for computer.

TCO of Windows on an image editing, workstation for someone who happens to code in off hours: $549 for computer.
$199 for Windows XP Pro.
$699 for PhotoShop 7.
$200 for Office XP.
$2499 for Visual Studio ,net Enterprise Architect editin.

This brings the TCO of Windows on the same hardware as that Linux box up to:


Versus the capable-of-the-same-things Linux box, on the same hardware:


The Windows installation takes 755% more money to do the same things the Linux box can.

The clear winner is... Linux.

Also, my Linux box (used as a web/email/ftp/jabber/irc server in addition to a desktop) can have patches and upgrades to software installed without REBOOTING, and without worrying about whether the system's gonna work after the patch gets installed.

Also, the Open Source framework with which Linux is developed allows for very rapid patching of any security holes.

Conversely, the only people who can see Windows source work at Microsoft, making the probability of having Windows patched in the same time frame as Linux extroardinarily low.

Shot to pieces, your argument was.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]