Recently, with both @Logan and @wendell throwing massive amounts of support to the Linux team, I feel that this forum has started to become extremely biased.
Now, I am no super user, I've been here a little over two years and maintain no real "oh hey look it's iPat8" montra, but I've been known to contest @Zoltan about his constant bashing of Windows.
Now, on to my real point.
Linux is really really cool, the ability to have open source software make it in the real world market is awesome and truly awe inspiring, but, it's touted as the god operating system when it still has flaws. I'd like to use @Zoltan's post "What If I want everything" for example.
Just because we are aware of vulnerabilities that exist does not mean that they are always exploited, futher more, a properly secured Windows install can be extremely resistant to malware or viruses.
The last time I checked, over 75% of the software that large corporations, power users, net admins, and regular consumers need to use isn't available on linux, and also, most people, don't know how to use VMs.
I've looked for your reasons that you stated you posted, couldn't find them. The only reason it runs faster is because it hasn't been setup.
BULL SHIT, I've used Andy on both QEMU, and x86, exactly the same setup. x86 runs significatly faster.
We can do everything you just said.
I'd like to link my post from this same topic, and the fact that it went unanswered.
I feel that Linux is great if you have the time for it. Windows still wins for productivity and ubiquity. A lot of people do not have time to sit and configure Linux, or learn the console. I understand that open source is a great thing, but we all have to remember that just because something is cool, doesn't mean that it's cool for everyone.
The next thing I'd like to address is the complete bashing of Windows throught out the forum. We used to have Max Haxks, and random videos about how to do cool stuff with Windows. I know that's not all we're about, but when the first 10 threads are about Linux, it doesn't seem like we're a very diverse forum.
Mods: If this topic causes a flame war, please feel free to close it, all I ask is that you NOTIFY me this time.
Personally, I don't think it's a diversity problem - as a tech forum, people are looking to try something new.
Windows does have its moments, though those simply may be a "chicken and the egg" problem for Linux, as Logan said. But to be honest, I don't think that the technology market would look the same if there weren't a proprietary market share. I guess there's also Apple, but I wouldn't want Apple to get any more of the stick than it has already taken...
And anyways, I don't think Linux will take off as the main desktop OS, at least, not for a few years yet. Even though Valve is pushing Linux with SteamOS and its SteamOS campaign, that will only push gamers and enthusiasts over, and even then not all, since pretty much all games coming out for Linux still come out for Windows. There are still a lot of every-day users that stick with Windows either because they are ignorant of the existence of alternatives, because they don't want to bother trying to figure out Linux or how to run some of their legacy Windows applications in Wine, and so on and so forth.
To be honest I pretty much agree with you. Linux is cool and all and I've played around with it but like I have mentioned before, to me at least, there are no benefits over Windows. other than it being open source. Which, tbh, I really don't care about.
You're a brave soul though creating this thread. Especially directly quoting Zoltan. Should be fun to watch. Can't wait for the 1000 word posts and arguments from everyone. Although, of course, I hope it doesn't turn to that. Looking at past threads about this topic though I feel that is the way it is going to go.
I know there are alternatives. Here is the thing though. I have a system that works. I know how to use said system. Why bother learning another system? Especially when that system really, to me, has no serious advantage. It isn't just legacy applications either and, similar to my previous statement, why bother emulating them when I can just run them natively on a system I already have?
Sure, Windows isn't new, and we're at the mercy of MS for security and new features, but, excluding the Windows 8 fiasco, they've done their job. Windows XP was one of the most installed desktop OSes of the early 20XXs, and even today you've got people running it. I'll give you the feature set point, infact, I agree with you there. Thanks
And that's your opinion, and that's fine. Some people just want to try something new, or perhaps want to use or learn a system that allows them to see how it works and fix any issues, if there are any. Linux is a lot more customizable out of the box, and in some cases can provide better performance as well, not to mention has better scaling and workspace support.
Linux is cool, but I just can't find enough reason to really move to it. All the videos Logan and Wendell put out make me want to switch, but I have my hands full with Windows already. I wish I could switch over to Linux but it really doesn't seem worth it. Maybe if Microsoft takes a turn for the worst but for now, I'm perfectly happy running Windows. This is going to be an interesting thread, you are indeed a brave soul starting this.
I'm going to sound like Stallman here, but “open source” really misses the point. I use GNU/Linux because it is free (free as in freedom). For me it's not so much about what it can or cannot do, it's about being in control of the tools I use. Being open source is just a precondition of being free. Migrating from Windows to GNU/Linux should not be about moving to a “better” OS, it should be about your freedom.
Sure Windows might work just fine and is conveinent, but you give up that control and your freedom. I know some of us here will rib on you for that, but that's your choice. You like Windows, that's your opinion, stand by it if you like.
Zolton probably ignored that last thing you quoted because he doesn't want to clutter that thread up with his reasoning for his opinions that he has already expressed many times in the past.
The problem lies within the fact that the majority of people take a stance on an issue or subject and will be hellbent on defending/maintaining that stance no matter what. You only have to look as far as politics to see that in one of the worst ways. Groupthink also plays a part.
A lot of people also make many things part of their identity. Hardcore Linux users, I'll use Zoltan as an example, will get defensive until they're blue in the face because Linux isn't just a tool he uses, its part of his identity. Its part of who he is. So when you criticize Linux you're criticizing his identity. And people take that very personally.
This video titled "Linux Sucks" is a really great video which discusses some of the cons of FOSS and GNU/Linux. The title is sensationalist and clickbait but the video is legitimately well balanced. The speaker is actually a hardcore GNU/Linux user himself and has worked for SUSE and written many articles for www.linux.com and other Linux related websites. So it is not just some guy being a hater.
He brings up a great example in the "needless, senseless" amounts of forking. Basically, instead of coming together and many people contributing to one project, they fork it because everyone wants to be the "king of their own castle" so to speak.
He explains it better in the video than I could here so I'll just let you watch the video. He starts talking about the forking at 2:23 if you just want to skip to that part but I recommend watching the whole video especially the part about funding which starts at 12:00.
That's all I'm really gonna write for this post. I don't want it to become a TL;DR post.
To say Linux, Windows, or etc... has no benefit is an ignorant thing to say.
Hell, BeOS still performs better on a multi CPU setup than other OS, for example.
No if one said "it has no benefit for me " would be better.
Use what you like and respect that others like other things,
Derailing a thread about an OS to promote another OS is toxic period.
The first computer I used ran Solaris, so I prefer Unix Like operating systems. I like the multi User design, which DOS based systems struggle with. That Multi user design helps make the system easier to Admin and deploy because of it
But windows does have a micro kernel which has its advantages. It's GUI is well fleshed out, OSX competes very well on this point. And directX is a nice GPU API.
As of late Microsoft has decided to try to chase Apple and Google in the casual consumer market. Most professional and power user features seem to be an after thought. I didn't leave Windows, Windows left me.
OpenSSL -> LibreSSL is not needless or senseless but really absolutely necessary because of the sheer amount of utter cruft in OpenSSL. Besides, monocultures are bad.
He comes back around to Open/LibreSSL and forking in general around 21:14. But from that point he is mostly talking about the positives of all the negative points he made in the first half.
I'm not trying to say all forking is bad. But I think I agree with him in the idea that its just done too much.
After Heartbleed, LibreSSL was created. Great. But then OpenSSL team received a bunch of funding from many companies. So now there is two different versions with two different teams with two different funding pools. If they merged together and had one version, one even bigger/brighter team, and one bigger funding pool then I think they could get a lot more done.
The concern with forking, I think, is that it thins out resources to the point where tons of teams are making small progress instead of having one team making huge progress.
If you don't know what satire is, you should look it up before watching that video. The first part is not going to make sense if you're not familiar with GNU/Linux and the philosophy behind it.
It's OK to have people with strong opinions doing their own thing. You want diversity and creativity should be able run wild. This way new ideas have a chance to grow and evolve or die out.
The difference with politics is that you have to put your code where your mouth is. Your solutions either works or it doesn't so there's less room political games and party bullshit. The simplest and fastest implementation will be favored by most and then adopted by the rest.
LibreSSL wasn't forked to fix bugs, it was forked to enable a complete overhaul of OpenSSL. The changes in LibreSSL would never be accepted to be merged into OpenSSL because they are dropping support for obscure platforms, doing major refactoring of memory systems, and generally rethinking a lot of decisions that hold OpenSSL back and are not likely to change just by throwing more resources at the project. Basically, LibreSSL could not do what they are doing without forking OpenSSL.
The "Linux Sucks" guy doesn't come across as being particularly familiar with what LibreSSL is doing. He's a Linux guy after all, not a BSD guy, and definitely not someone who actually works with the code in those projects. If you want a good talk about the motivation behind LibreSSL, I suggest Bob Beck's talk at BSDCan 2014.
I'm not an expert on GNU/Linux by any stretch but I started experimenting with GNU/Linux around 2009 starting with Ubuntu. I've tried LinuxMint, OpenSUSE, Fedora, and Elementary OS as well over the years, can't remember if I've tried others. But its usually just a case of installing it, messing around a little bit and just checking things out. I've never used GNU/Linux as a daily driver.
When I was taking network security/administration in college we had a few courses using GNU/Linux, specifically Ubuntu Server 10.04 LTS. We did the typical things. You can check out my documentation for one of my Linux projects. It's pretty half assed and incomplete though, so don't judge me on that haha. http://1drv.ms/1MyTx4r
This is a thread about Windows after all, so let's talk about Windows more.
I went to install Windows 10 the other day and noticed you still can't install it to an external drive. I'm thinking of putting it on my SSD to play with. Any thoughts on Windows 10 out there? Is it ready to be a daily driver yet?
People take it for granted, and most people don't even consider it when it comes to electronic devices. But you only have to look at the news to see that the things Richard Stallman (Creator of GNU) said years ago (and says to this day) about the using having control over their hardware was absolutely right.
You should use GNU/Linux because it might be free in price or better, you should use it because its designed to work for you and respect your rights.
I don't think that this forum is biased to Linux. There is a lot of things that Linux does better than Win/Mac that many people do not know about. Also this forum is pretty tech savvy, making Linux more appealing. I think the general consensus is that you use the OS that works for you. People will get heated debating the nuances of the different distros and different OSs. However I think it all comes down to what do you need/want. Really we should not give a fuck what someone else uses as it effects us in no way.