"So, which really is better for the desktop: Vista or Linux? I've been working with Vista since its beta days, and I started using Linux in the mid-90s. There may be other people who have worked with both more than I have, but there can't be many of them. Along the way, I've formed a strong opinion: Linux is the better of the two. But, now that Vista is on the brink of becoming widely available, I thought it was time to take a comprehensive look at how the two really compare. To do this, I decided to take one machine, install both of them on it, and then see what life was like with both operating systems on a completely even playing field."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-11
//So instead of the current Windows monopoly you prefer a Linux distro monopoly?
No thanks.//
I'm curious. Why not?
Firstly, Linux distributions are numerous and there are several companies offering more-or-less-compatible variants.
Secondly, if the far larger percentage of desktops out there were actually Linux desktops, then all of the software companies whom make applications only for Windows would instead make the for Linux or Windows, which would only be good.
Member since:2005-11-23
I'm curious. Why not?
Because I don't want to run on linux.
Firstly, Linux distributions are numerous and there are several companies offering more-or-less-compatible variants.
And ? They are all using the same packages from the same project. There is no difference between two linux distro out of the default wallpaper and sometimes 1/2 admin tools.
Secondly, if the far larger percentage of desktops out there were actually Linux desktops, then all of the software companies whom make applications only for Windows would instead make the for Linux or Windows, which would only be good.
The same apply to each OS. If BSD was 30% market share, if Apple was 30% market share, if Sun was 30% market share.
Member since:2005-11-06
Because any monopoly is bad. I prefer to use FreeBSD, not Linux although I don't dislike it, so only having a choice of Linux distros feels just as bad as only being able to choose Windows.
Linux doesn't need to be the larger percentage of desktops, just large enough to get developers writing for both platforms, and preferably for MS, Linux, *BSD, OS X for starters, followed by the smaller OS' out there.
It's all about using the right tool for the job.
Member since:2006-05-18
More accurately it would be a duopoly (Windows + Linux), which would be a far better situation that now.
The state of things in the Linux world is absolutely insane from a commercial developer's point of view - look at Adobe - it took them an year (?) to port Flash Player 9 to Linux, because they have to support all the different flavors of Linux reliably. Imagine how long it would take to port Photoshop. I wish they would choose one or two big distros (like Suse, RedHat or Ubuntu) and forget about the rest.
Member since:2005-11-23
Member since:2006-01-09
The state of things in the Linux world is absolutely insane from a commercial developer's point of view - look at Adobe - it took them an year (?) to port Flash Player 9 to Linux, because they have to support all the different flavors of Linux reliably. Imagine how long it would take to port Photoshop. I wish they would choose one or two big distros (like Suse, RedHat or Ubuntu) and forget about the rest.
It took this long to Adobe to port Flash for Linux because they don't really care about this market therefore they did not invest nearly as much into it. In order to create a browser plugin for Linux browsers, you just need to code for the ancient Netscape plugin API that Mozilla inherited and all the other browsers had to cope with in order to support the existing solutions.
They had a problem with sound output for a while and were forced to choose OSS (in order to keep compatibility with non-Linux systems such as FreeBSD) so Linux users needed to use the OSS emulation plugin on ALSA. I believe that this was one of the biggest reasons for the audio and video being out of sync in the earlier versions.
Judging by that dude's blog that is a Adobe developer, the Flash Player code is highly portable except where it needs codecs in order to play audio and video.
They could port their other software easily if they want and they already have experience with that. They did a brief trial with FrameMaker on Linux a few years ago but decided to withdraw it. Also, their highend software used to run on Irix (I still have a original copy of Photoshop 3.0 for SGI with the booklet and everything) just as fine if not better than on Mac.
Photoshop Elements was entirely developed on Qt and its developers praised that toolkit back then.
Actually, some people argue that Adobe may have some of their flagship software ported to other non-MS and non-Apple platforms just to keep Microsoft at base just in case it decides to play bully on them.
In a nutshell, Flash Player 9 could have happened a long time ago if Adobe really wanted it. They just made a proper port at all because it probably helps on the bottom line that is, get the player running everywhere (including cell phones) in order to sell the authoring product.
Member since:
2005-11-06
So instead of the current Windows monopoly you prefer a Linux distro monopoly?
No thanks.