“There’s a community within Unix-Linux that has grown to increase its stability, where finding the bugs is considered a positive thing. Whereas, with Windows, there’s a rather aggressive community trying to find bugs to denigrate Microsoft and Windows.” Read the article at NewsFactor.
Which Is Buggier – Windows or Linux?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
“Which Is Buggier – Windows or Linux?”
Why Windows of course. It has the butterfly.
One will never know, unless a third party audited both code bases. Even then, things would get overlooked. I think both are “buggier” in their own way.
Problem with that review is that most of the ‘bugfixes’ he sees for download for Linux are usually for other applications that aren’t part of the OS. Windows XP comes with very few extra program, so it’s not fair to directly compare them.
While this is a good and often-debated issue, the article is horrible. They give one fact–27 vs. 158–and the rest is all “You can’t tell,” “Not sure,” “Depends on the definition,” etc. etc. If you’re not going to answer the question, what’s the point of the article?
I must say that when I first read this I thought it was flamebait, but then when I read the article I found an interesting observation that I hadn’t thought of before:
Even if Windows has more bugs than the core part of Linux, would M$ actually shout about them until they’ve been proven by there larger enterprise customers?
The point about the community actually finding and reporting these problems is interesting, does M$ actually listen to its core users unless there is a gaping hole that someone bigger (IE with more money than its average user) points it out to them in a public way?
Fascinating stuff, I’d like to look into this in greater depth, but as the article states, even with full disclosure on the Windows side, it would be a massive undertaking.
Another point would be, who would belive the answers anyone found?
Problem with that review is that most of the ‘bugfixes’ he sees for download for Linux are usually for other applications that aren’t part of the OS. Windows XP comes with very few extra program, so it’s not fair to directly compare them.
I don’t normally see people who have a problem comparing them when they want to compare the ‘hundreds of applications’ that come with a typical Linux distro with the handful of ‘vanilla’ apps that come with Windows XP. Why is it ok to compare the two except when the apps that come with Linux (distros) reflect it in a negative light ?
https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rh72-errata.html
Why doesn’t someone go through and count how many security/bug fixes in there are related to things that are similarly packaged with Windows? For example, exclude MySQL bugs, but include Samba bugs.
Sure it wouldn’t solve everything, like the question of severity, but at least you’d get some better comparison numbers.
I think the point was valid myself, how many fixes does the average Office package recieve in its life, or games, or even big apps like photoshop? If you’re going to include one, then by all means include the fixes for the alternative platforms apps also.
Otherwise, how could it be fair?
Seeing that it’s a comparison of numbers… Look at the other layer.
Linux is Open-Source and MS is IP.
I wonder how much the number would change if MS was Open-Source as well.
Just food for thought.
We’re talking about two different measures. When someone sits down at a Linux box for the first time, the Linux box comes with all sorts of useful applications while the Windows box does not. This is the “out-of-box” usefulness that people are referring to. However, we’re talking about bug counts, and bugs influence the user not in the out of box state, but in the completely configured state. Thus, to gauge accurately which environment will be buggier, you have to compare either just the core OS, or all the applications together.
Look at it this way: Linux gives you lots of “extras” as a bonus for using the OS. Just because Windows ships bare-bones, doesn’t mean that it should have an inherent advantage in bug tallys, especially since the user will notice the $500 hit on their wallet when they have to buy Office and whatnot, but they’ll never actually run Windows in that bare-bone configuration.
PS> Although, I would probably have to say that while the Linux core is rather stable, a Linux user might encounter more minor bugs during day-to-day use. This is largely caused by the fact that Windows users tend to use a few large applications, while the properties of the application base mean that Linux users use a larger number of smaller applications. On the flip side, the guts of Linux (in my experience) are a good deal more stable than the guts of Windows. My Linux laptop has no trouble at all mounting Windows SMB shares over our wireless network, but Explorer freezes up for large periods of time connecting to an SMB share, if it manages to connect at all. FTP support in Explorer is just broken, it takes forever to connect. Worst of all, an Explorer crash often means that the entire desktop crashes and has to be restarted. Misbehaving applications can cause the entire GUI to lock up for ten seconds at a time, and the slightest hint of file corruption (through an improper shutdown or bad hardware) causes the entire XP installation to commit hara-kiri. Overall, when something goes wrong in Linux, its a matter of simply restarting the errant application. When something goes wrong in Windows its rather more dramatic.
I recently had the misfortune of trying to fix a friend’s XP machine. It turns out he had a bad hard drive (which isn’t so rare these days). First of all, it took forver to diagnose the problem because XP wasn’t emitting an error. I had to go into the system log to find out that the SMART hardware in the drive was throwing up warnings. A similar situation in Linux would have sent debug messages spewing forth to the console. Before we could properly replace the hard drive, the drive pretty much gave away and rendered XP unbootable. The “recovery CD” that Microsoft provided proved to be utterly useless — it wouldn’t detect the marginal drive. I simply booted from my Gentoo CD, mounted the bad drive, which in reality worked well enough for recovery purposes, and FTP’ed his data over to my computer. I was even able to use Lynx to surf the web while I waited for the transfer
Normaly, I hate anecdotal evidence, but I’ve noticed three things in my experience:
1) Most Windows machines are very poorly maintained. Flaky shareware patches, questionable drivers and extensions, you name it. Linux in general requires less TLC, and is harder for the user to mess up.
2) Windows issues are very difficult to fix. The opacity of the system might contribute to a feel of polish, but it makes debugging a pain. Linux is much better in this regard.
3) Windows can be very fragile. I can move my Linux installation from drive to drive, change the partition table, introduce random file corruption, etc, and Linux will still boot happily. Even looking at the parition table the wrong way will render Windows unbootable, and once it is unbootable, the rather pathetic Windows recovery tools don’t help at all.
In many cases it can also mean that people who use your product actually give you feedback because they know you’ll respond. Low bug counts sometimes mean your customers have totally given up hope that you’ll fix anything.
I ran into this before where I worked in a facility that housed multiple software subcontractors. The other vendors liked to point at our high bug count as evidence of bad software. We still had a good relationship with our customer and always came out far ahead of everyone else when it came time to evaluations.
From the article:
“Compare the results: Professional XP with 27 fixes;”
Checking the MS site to get this result however doesn’t even include the IE, OE or IIS bugs since the launch of XP Pro. If we add these results to the core OS bugs then the number miraculously doubles.
Personally I’ll take my security updates out in the open and quickly fixed – one after each meal – and stay with my RH9 desktop.
Let’s compare Apples with Apples here. A Windows XP installation against a Debian GNU/Linux installation before any apps are installed. The Debian system has very few at all whereas the Windows XP system has many more.
Don’t count the apps for Linux if they won’t be counted for Windows XP.
Windows has more…hands down…and I’m a windows user! Doh!
I’d say that if you compared a new windows install with either a “compile it yourself” nix like Sorcerer Linux or FreeBSD you would find more bugs in the Windows install, as the class of user on the *free* platform is the kind of person who will get the latest code sources and compile in all the fixes
If you compared an XP install with a PC like mine which has an install of RH9 and a few additions ( KDE 3.1.2, WINE, Yahoo IM ) I dare say the XP install would come out ahead.
I lack the skill to compile the latest, most bug-free code. I don’t know if any of the precompiled packages I install carry secret bugs and I couldn’t, probably, fix them if they did
The same goes at Kernel level since very few distributions apparently share identical kernels and many compile in extra features ( NPTL threading, for instance ) which don’t inhabit the standard kernel sources for their chosen release.
Linux’ lack of homogeneity of code and of user is going to make a study like this pretty questionable. thats my 6 shillings worth.
Windows!
Linux!
<…now to sit back and watch the kiddies fight…>
I don’t think that this is even a fair discussion. What exactly are we comparing? The 2 kernels? If not, how can you compare an entire OS and a kernel? Its not possible IMO.
GNU tools tend to be alot less buggy then Microsoft tools in General I have found, and KDE offeres a better environment with just as little bugs. Microsoft produces an OS, it includes several weak programs, then expects you to pay twice the amount you paid for the OS for an Office Suite.
So I ask again, what are we comparing? The Windows and Linux kernels? The Windows and Linux user environment (ie DOS vs Bash)? The Window and Linux GUI environments? This is a little unclear.
People need to stop trying to pick apart operating systems, they all do there job adequitly, and NONE are perfect. Comparisons are useless to everyone involved!
We’re talking about two different measures. When someone sits down at a Linux box for the first time, the Linux box comes with all sorts of useful applications while the Windows box does not. This is the “out-of-box” usefulness that people are referring to.
I think that the out of the box usefullness with WinXP is a lot better than with linux, specialy when you have some
hardware that isn’t supported by default.
the pain it took to get my tablet working in linux not to mention the digital out of the soundcard, watching dvd’s, wifi or 3d hardware accelleration of radeon cards.
Yes windows has bugs we have all seen them and yes Microsoft really has people trying to fix them.
and so does linux.
XP doesn’t support my Wireless card by default, neither did Linux. On the Windows side, I installed the driver off of the CD and then the computer bluescreened on reboot. I had to eject, uninstall the driver, connect to ethernet, find a new driver, and install it. When I installed RedHat 8 (9 supports it) I had to connect to ethernet, find the driver, make && make install it. I don’t see how it’s any more difficult in either OS. If I was not a technical person it would have been a NIGHTMARE no matter what OS I used. I think both Microsoft and Linux developers are trying very hard to build stable products thanks to competition. I don’t believe this would be true if it weren’t for Apple and Linux biting at Microsoft’s heels (Think back 4 years when Microsoft refused to admit problems, they have come a HELL of a long way since then.).
You can’t really compare the two, on which OS is buggier. For example, you have every hacker or just general person trying to break Microsoft Windows. You don’t see that type of action towards Linux or Unix really.
People want to see Windows fail and or suffer, so they attack that code as much as possible. And on the other side, people aren’t trying to see Linux fail or suffer, it’s the other way wrong. People want to see Linux rise as the best.
So personally I think it’s an unfair question. For the reason stated above.
But if it’s a which one is which answer. I would say Windows is more prone to bugs. On the terms of bugs that let people take complete control of the system (which are the nasty ones). The bugs that I’ve seen with Linux tend to be minor, and mainly operating system fixes.
People want to see Windows fail and or suffer, so they attack that code as much as possible. And on the other side, people aren’t trying to see Linux fail or suffer, it’s the other way wrong. People want to see Linux rise as the best.
Define “people”. Linux code is being attacked every day, as much as most open source software, including apache or freebsd, and patches released almost instantly.
But of course, you can’t attack Windows code. You can just attack the binaries and wonder how many more bugs would you find sooner if you had access to its source code. Not that that solves anything, anyway.
By market numbers alone (Which can not really be measured since Linux is largely a download/install OS) there are potentially more people that hate Linux than vice versa. (If just 3% of Windows users hated Linux, they would have amassed a force almost twice the size of the total Linux desktop market IMHO.) I don’t believe that anyone really disliking Windows would go out of their way to learn enough about it to write viruses. It’s more about getting their name on the map, since that’s true why aren’t there any Linux viruses? Think about it, the first person to crack Linux with a virus would go down in history. There are 63844 viruses known with the latest Symantec virus dat file. Linux has been on the market since the early 90’s, where are it’s viruses? Apple has had an OS on the market since the early 80’s, where are it’s viruses?
Something to chew on. 😉
“Windows has more…hands down…and I’m a windows user! Doh!”
So, how can you compare ?
I say SkyOS has more bug !!!
It is also possible to compare security bugs in various operating systems. For example, go to
http://www.ciac.org/ciac/bulletinsByType/bul_vendor_list.html
and browse around a little to see all the security bulletins for the last few years. Of course, in the past couple of years Microsoft has made an effort to address secruity problems more than in the past, so maybe you should concentrate only on the ones 2002 and later.
Also, it is interesting to speculate about the nature of these security problems. Many of them are due to buffer overruns, which are, for the most part, a failure of the C language conventions for character strings. If the OS were written in a language other than C, with its open-ended null-terminated character string convention, it would be more secure in the very beginning. Then, as an additional layer, there are the security bugs that are really due to the OS design, how messages are passed between processes, how priviliged processes communicate with nonpriviliged processes, how filesystems prevent unauthorized access, and so on. And then there is the issue of application security, such as macro bugs in various applications that allow viruses and trojen horses regardless of how secure is the underlying OS.
Writing an article asking which OS is buggier based on bug fixes is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I have no idea why anyone would even consider it valid, yet it happens time and time and time again. What does buggier mean anyways? Is it still a bug if they decide to call it a feature? Does a bug not exist until it is reported? Does it count if there is no exploit available? What about KDE bugs? Do those count as Redhat bugs even though GNOME is the default? I am sure Litestep bugs don’t count against MS. What about bugs in XMMS? Do they count? I know Winamp bugs don’t count against MS. There is no way to do such a test in a way that has any meaning. The most you could do is lay down some sane ground rules about what counts as a bug for each OS and admit to the fact that it is going to be unfair. This “apples to apples” comparison hasn’t, won’t, and can’t happen.
Rayiner Hashem
Thus, to gauge accurately which environment will be buggier, you have to compare either just the core OS, or all the applications together.
I’m not so sure about that. What I think a lot of the problems/bugs in Linux stem from is the way applications depend on various other apps and libraries in which the user/distro maker is responsible for installing. So in essence, a lot of the stability of Linux depends on having the right combination of apps/libraries installed, and thus I think it is fair to judge Linux with all of the apps installed together. As an example of what I’m talking about, I had the (dis)pleasure of using Ogle in Redhat 9 and in order to get it working with a GUI frontend, I needed one library to read the DVDs, one for the CSS decryption, one for the app itself, and one for the GUI – that’s 4 potential problems waiting to happen just trying to run one app. Contrast this with installing PowerDVD on Windows – so long as your video card drivers are good and the DVD player works, it’s going to work. In Windows (2k/XP), as long as your hardware is good and you have proper drivers for your hardware, the OS will be rock solid, even with 100+ apps installed (assuming those apps were well written). Each app will pretty much run independently of the others. There’s none of this having to worry about having the right version of Glib..so.qt.bonobo.thiskinducks and all that stupid shit.
So, there’s package managers like apt-get to help with the problems that I spoke of above. But, what if you’re using Debian and you need to install about 50 different packages, so you go and grab a few from Testing that you need, a few from Sarge, a few more from an unofficial apt-get repository and then maybe a couple more from some guy’s FTP site and throw them all on the same machine – what do you think is going to happen? I’ll tell you what’s going to happen .. at best, you’re going to have a handful of apps that barf or simply don’t work at all.
So, on the Windows side, if all I’ve got to worry about is the OS install not working when I take my hard drive out of one machine and put it in the other, then fuck it … it seems better than the alternative.
Most Windows machines are very poorly maintained. Flaky shareware patches, questionable drivers and extensions, you name it.
Agreed, but how much of that is the OS’s fault when you install ‘questionable’ drivers and then fill it with a bunch of shitty apps that put 30,000 icons in the system tray? There are a lot of great quality apps in Windows – Gator its ilk are not included in that group.
Windows issues are very difficult to fix. The opacity of the system might contribute to a feel of polish, but it makes debugging a pain.
True, but a little preventative maintenance and common sense, and your Windows install will rarely (if ever) fail.
Windows can be very fragile
See above comments.
Aitvo
On the Windows side, I installed the driver off of the CD and then the computer bluescreened on reboot. I had to eject, uninstall the driver, connect to ethernet, find a new driver, and install it. When I installed RedHat 8 (9 supports it) I had to connect to ethernet, find the driver, make && make install it. I don’t see how it’s any more difficult in either OS.
Ok, so let’s break this down:
1. When a piece of hardware isn’t supported by the OS …
a) In Windows, you insert the CD when prompted and, presto.
b) In Linux, you download the driver, make && make install it
So, which is easier out of the above two?
2. In the unlikely event that the above methods for each OS doesn’t work …..
a) In Windows, you download/install the driver
b) What the hell do you do in Linux at this point ?
Issuing fixes for more thn one thing at a time. Counting the numbers of fixes favours windows. Redhat is packaging different apps from different soures, so the number of fixes rises too. Just an observation too. Counting patches and fixes is not fair.
Just because Windows ships bare-bones, doesn’t mean that it should have an inherent advantage in bug tallys, especially since the user will notice the $500 hit on their wallet when they have to buy Office and whatnot, but they’ll never actually run Windows in that bare-bone configuration.
Unless they actually need MS Office to r un something, why do they need to buy it, considering that Open Office (and probably about 300 others) runs just fine in Windows, along with Mozilla, Gimp, and many of the other open source apps as well?
Also, in the above post, I think I meant Sid instead of Sarge, or maybe Schmuck … I dunno
I was going to post lots of comments to the above but i got carried away (read: started to fall to sleep) so i did this (mod’d my own comments before i posted them heh)
<snip myself>
on one side
Why can’t red hat linux 9 have ACPI support ENABLED and pre-configured into the kernel.
Please Red Hat, fix that.
On the other side, i’m annoyed about the ipv6 firewall bug in winxp/.net server, but i live with it and still serve up web pages.
Please Microsoft, Fix that.
</done>
cheers
anyweb
http://anwyeb.kicks-ass.net
>As an example of what I’m talking about, I had the >(dis)pleasure of using Ogle in Redhat 9 and in order to get >it working with a GUI frontend, I needed one library to >read the DVDs, one for the CSS decryption, one for the app >itself, and one for the GUI – that’s 4 potential problems >waiting to happen just trying to run one app. Contrast this >with installing PowerDVD on Windows – so long as your video >card drivers are good and the DVD player works, it’s going >to work.
This has nothing to do with the way Linux does things. The reason it is necessary to implement such things with DVD players is that it is ILLEGAL to play DVDs on Linux computers, since Linux has no licensed DVD software. Of course, I think this is ridiculous, but don’t blame it on Linux.
>So, there’s package managers like apt-get to help with the >problems that I spoke of above. But, what if you’re using >Debian and you need to install about 50 different packages, >so you go and grab a few from Testing that you need, a few >from Sarge, a few more from an unofficial apt-get >repository and then maybe a couple more from some guy’s FTP >site and throw them all on the same machine – what do you >think is going to happen? I’ll tell you what’s going to >happen .. at best, you’re going to have a handful of apps >that barf or simply don’t work at all.
You’re talking out of your ass here. I run a Debian system (I think you meant Sid not Sarge; Sarge == testing) with all sorts of stuff–some from woody, lots from sid, all of Xfree from some guy’s FTP site, lots of Alienized RPM packages….and I never run into any problems. I really don’t see how apps barfing could be “best”, since my system runs just fine.
>Agreed, but how much of that is the OS’s fault when you >install ‘questionable’ drivers and then fill it with a >bunch of shitty apps that put 30,000 icons in the system >tray? There are a lot of great quality apps in Windows – >Gator its ilk are not included in that group.
Often, you don’t have a choice on whether to install questionable drivers–it’s either that or none at all. Linux has very few crappy shareware applications and thousands of Free ones that do not put zillions of icons in the system tray. You evaluate Linux+free apps, let’s be fair and evaluate Windows+’free’ apps. Come on, if I want a program that shows me a different picture every 5 seconds to keep me amused, I’m not going to go and pay $30 or even $10 for it.
>a) In Windows, you insert the CD when prompted and, presto.
Again, this is not a fault of Linux, but of MS dominance. If HW manufacturers supplied drivers, it would be just as easy. You say not to blame Windows for things that are noty its fault earlier. Why blame Linux?
On the desktop, windows (xp and recent) is more stable. On the server, linux is way more stable. And as for real bugs, linux has to be way better than windows, but there’s no way to really compare, because, windows being a closed system, finding bugs in it is more like finding a dark object in a dark room.
They are both just as easy provided you open the README. 😉
Why compare a whoe OS to a kernel?
the real issue isn’t which is “buggier,” but rather bugs interfere with my data, workflow, and convenience the most. For sheer annoyance, GNU/Linux can’t be beaten. Xfree alone provides the greatest number of desktop losses for me, but KDE runs a close second. I’ve reported Xfree itself as a bug, so expect changes soon people. There is yet hope!
You really mis-overestimate (As Bush would have put it) the competence of Windows users.
Anyway, that is not the fault of Linux, but of hardware vendors. They will not release drivers for Linux, and will not release hardware specs for their stuff. Cannot expect anything from there can we.
You clearly have not installed NVidia drives for Linx of late have you.
I had the misfortune of installing Windows 2000 on my Computer once, and it did not have drivers for the network card, and I had no diskette with the drivers. I have never seen so much troouble in my life. Linux has always had drivers for that stuff though, though it might be because Win2K is older.
>> I had the misfortune of installing Windows 2000 on my Computer once, … I have never seen so much troouble in my life.
>>
I’m actually building a new Win2k box for an IIS server as I write this. I am using a pre-2002 Akamai blade server, and guess what? I’ve been at it for over 3 hours now, and I have just finally gotten it to start installing. We had formerly run BSDi and Linux on this machine, and had absolutely no problem with anything. So much for the touted greatness of the win2k series.
Yeah I thought it was until yesterday. I’ve visited one website using Opera first and then IE under WinXP which both of it get very slow during scrolling (god damn slow) and sometime freeze. The task manager sometime state that the process is not responding and sometime state it is OK. I’ve tried it quite a few times and the result is still the same. Well at least i didn’t get that Blue Screen of Death as what normally happened under Win98 or Win95.
Later I tried accessing the website using Opera under Debian. To my surprise, the scrolling and everything far smoother than what I get under WinXP. I don’t know about any other bug but to me WinXP is the most stable Windows I’ve ever used.
I must say that this is the greatest amount of drivel I’ve read in a while. While it shows WinXP with 25-odd security updates and RedHat 7.2 with 150 odd, it forgets to address the fact that Windows XP doesn’t come with many of the apps that RedHat 7.2 does. A web server, a mail server, an ftp server, a news server, a proxy server, ssh and countless others. These are among the most heavily updated pieces of software.
I realise that XP pro comes with SOME of these features but I assume that these people didn’t install them, otherwise they would have gottem more updates. Until WinXP gets these features standard and Microsoft takes a similar attitude to bugfixes as OSS developers, I can’t see how this argument holds any water.
This was a very simplistic comparison IMHO.
Basically is good to find a bug, just if you can fix it
on opensource you can do it and should do it asap
on M$ stuff you can’t get it fixed till the next service pack or something worse (like the never fixed winnt4 bugs)
The reason it is necessary to implement such things with DVD players is that it is ILLEGAL to play DVDs on Linux computers
So are you saying that DVD apps are the only applications that require user installed libraries?
You’re talking out of your ass here. I run a Debian system (I think you meant Sid not Sarge; Sarge == testing) with all sorts of stuff–some from woody, lots from sid, all of Xfree from some guy’s FTP site, lots of Alienized RPM packages….and I never run into any problems.
You may be right, but I’m not talking out of my ass. There was a review here some time ago (that I can’t find, unfortunately) that mentioned you may run into some trouble if you try this.
Often, you don’t have a choice on whether to install questionable drivers
You have the same choice as you do in Linux. If a device has only questionable or non-existant drivers for Linux, would you purchase said device? Usually, doing a 5-10 minute search will tell you how good a device’s drivers are in Windows (check user comments on various hardware review forums).
Linux has very few crappy shareware applications
No but it has a lot of crappy and/or alpha-quality free ones. (Of course, it also has some great ones as well, but then again, so does every other OS.)
Again, this is not a fault of Linux, but of MS dominance. If HW manufacturers supplied drivers, it would be just as easy. You say not to blame Windows for things that are noty its fault earlier. Why blame Linux?
This is not a blame game. Normally when someone like Aitvo starts mouthing about how drivers in Linux are just as easy to install than in Windows by comparing the primary method of installing in Linux vs the secondary in Windows, and you point out the error of their ways, then they start to whine about MS dominance. Yeah, ok … fine, you’re right. But don’t sit here and tell me that it’s easier (more intuitive) in Linux when it is clearly not.
You really mis-overestimate (As Bush would have put it) the competence of Windows users.
Trust me – I’ve been doing tech support for more than 5 years – I know exactly what the competence level of the average Windows user is, which is almost nil. This is why so many Windows boxen are so poorly maintained. And to think – guys like Aitvo want them in Linux opening README files *shudders*
I’m actually building a new Win2k box for an IIS server as I write this. I am using a pre-2002 Akamai blade server, and guess what? I’ve been at it for over 3 hours now, and I have just finally gotten it to start installing. We had formerly run BSDi and Linux on this machine, and had absolutely no problem with anything.
Yeah, ok … and how long ago was Win2k released? 1999? I assume, since you went through the trouble to bring this up, that you tried a Linux distro on the same machine that is 3-4 years old just for a fair comparison?
“Trust me – I’ve been doing tech support for more than 5 years – I know exactly what the competence level of the average Windows user is, which is almost nil. This is why so many Windows boxen are so poorly maintained. And to think – guys like Aitvo want them in Linux opening README files *shudders* ”
I work in tech support, too. Whenever a client wants a
driver/program/hardware installed, they call me. I sit
in front of their win98 little box, click next next next,
get up and leave.
Now, why are you assuming that using Linux my clients would
be forced to read REAMEs ? They would not. They would
call me just like they do when they need me to fix their win98, except this time i would be typing `make && make install` instead of clicking `next`… From the Luser
standpoint, support is not the problem because they do not
take care of it.
I never said that I wanted them in Linux opening README files, I was making the point that if they followed directions it’s just as easy on either OS. You seem to assume that they will take the time to check the drivers out before buying, why can’t I expect people to crack users guides? 😉
Well, seeing how a bulk of Free Software bug fixes are proactive and a bulk of fixes for proprietary platforms are reactive you can’t really compare the two, can you?
Darius do you work for microsoft? Take a base (eg. roll your own) Linux system and compare it to a base Windows system.. Both may not have the same usability but according to you thats OK because were comparing the base systems and all those “extra” features on windows are included in the base system — which is what were comparing.
is anyone else getting flooded with connections from oz.valueclick.com and a.tribalfusion.com.. Opera is going nuts. apparently the same doesnt happen with IE.
I’m not so sure about that. What I think a lot of the problems/bugs in Linux stem from is the way applications depend on various other apps and libraries in which the user/distro maker is responsible for installing.
>>>>>>>
Code sharing is a feature not a bug! It means that applications can use a trusted, well tested code base rather than rolling their own copy of everything. Having the major Linux libraries as free software means that application developers are far more likely to reuse code from other projects. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. What you’re saying flies in the face of decades of computer science!
Contrast this with installing PowerDVD on Windows – so long as your video card drivers are good and the DVD player works, it’s going to work…There’s none of this having to worry about having the right version of Glib..so.qt.bonobo.thiskinducks and all that stupid shit.
>>>>>>>>
This is perhaps the dumbest thing I’ve read in a while. First of all, just because you can’t see all the layers of software in a Windows system doesn’t mean its not there. Windows software has the habit of packaging all required libraries along with the program. In the Linux world, we can just depend on the package manager to do the right thing, and not resort to hacks like that. Second, Linux is not Windows. Don’t treat it like Windows. That path leads only to pain and misery. Trust me. I used to do the same thing. Let me give you a hint: you should never use rpmfind.net! In Linux, you do not go around manually installing things you downloaded off the ‘net. You use the package database that comes with your distribution. If that causes a compatibility problem, then that’s a legitimate complaint, but in a year of using Gentoo (which is more bleeding edge and thus less likely to be well tested) I’ve had *one* packaging problem, and that was with a beta version of KDE. If you use a distribution with a large software repository (Mandrake, SuSE, Debian) and have some trusted “extra” repositories in your sources lists, you should rarely come across a package you need to install manually.
Agreed, but how much of that is the OS’s fault when you install ‘questionable’ drivers and then fill it with a bunch of shitty apps that put 30,000 icons in the system tray?
>>>>>>
It’s not really a fault of the OS, but it is an advantage of Linux that it is harder for the user to break it by installing shitty software.
True, but a little preventative maintenance and common sense, and your Windows install will rarely (if ever) fail.
>>>>>>
Fact of life. Machines *will* fail. You might be able to keep your personal machine in good shape, but if you have to maintain machines for anyone else, the “common sense” assumption is going a bit far. Even if all the machines are under the strict watch of a knowedable user, hardware fails, drivers blow up, viruses leak in. Shit happens. When that shit happens, its imperative that you be able to fix things as easily as possible. Engineers don’t count on things to never fail. They assume that certain things will fail, and build in measures to minimize the damage. Software systems should be no different.
1. When a piece of hardware isn’t supported by the OS …
a) In Windows, you insert the CD when prompted and, presto.
b) In Linux, you download the driver, make && make install it
So, which is easier out of the above two?
>>>>>
b? Takes less time then “Next-ing” your way out of a blinky-blink, over-done driver installer. Besides that, I think the important point is that Windows driver installs are more likely to fail, because frankly, most hardware companies do not have the kind of rigid standards the Linux kernel does.
generally speaking, when a bug is found in Linux or an opensource program, it is actually fixed. It isn’t sugar coated or avoided. If a few things break because of a broken API call that gets fixed, then I say it should get fixed.
Microsoft’s problem has ALWAYS been putting backwards compatibility before product quality. It is about time they did something about it. Not “in the next version”, now, in Windows XP service Pack 2.
Look at netcraft:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=a101.ms.a.microsoft.com
So if Microsoft is so great and non buggy why do they USE LINUX FOR THIER OWN WEBSITES!?!?!?
how many MS using linux links would you like?
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=a100.ms.a.microsoft.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=a102.ms.a.microsoft.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=a103.ms.a.microsoft.com
Should I go on? They have at least 50 servers using Linux. The others use win 2000. NOT 2003. Wonder why?
they are not “new”. They’ve always been there, only, _YOU_ never knew. They don’t start being a risk only when an honest person makes them avaiable, they could have been misused by others for years. The issue is a relative one to me due to this fact.
Everybody seems to ignore the fact that Linux still isn’t at the stage of usability that Microsoft accomplished five years ago with Win98. The “bugs” issue is immaterial until usability issues are solved.
The question here is whether you would prefer to sacrifice usability for a lower initial monetary expenditure – this makes sense for most servers – or whether usability is the goal; in the latter case, Linux plain stinks. The newest Red Hat or Mandrake distros (9 and 9.1 respectively as I write this) are miles behind Windows 2000, and that’s an ancient OS already.
I’d say Windows has a lot of bugs, but that penguin is completely ****ed up.
Spasmatic creature who have trauma from some Daemon who kicks his butt every day =)
The newest Red Hat or Mandrake distros (9 and 9.1 respectively as I write this) are miles behind Windows 2000, and that’s an ancient OS already.
That is completely pathetic to say the least. What part of Redhat Linux 9 suffers from “poor usability”? If you were to say that it lacks some key commercial applications then your opinion would be valid, however, these days Redhat Linux 9 is just as functional as a desktop operating system as Windows.
As for Windows. Windows has a greater usability problem than Linux. Windows ONLY survives because of two things, first, it is well established and secondly because Joe and Jane average choose to run Windows based on the fact that it is the predominant operating system used at work.
Joe and Jane average are no computer literate people, so to ensure they don’t get the “wrong thing” they simply replicate what they have at work. If their work computer has Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office, I’ll beat my bottom dollar that they’ll be running it at home.
If you want to change the situation, you have to change what is being used in business. Once there is a change in business there will be a ripple effect to the consumer market.
Companies like Adobe will not be able to then avoid porting their applications out of fear that someone will grab the lime light off them in graphics market.
Just from my experience linux is more secure and stable and scalabla than windows.
Think of windows 98 and Redhat 7.3
I’m currently running on windows 2000 PRO SP3 and I like it a lot! Don’t get me wrong, I’m very open to a lot of the other OS’es out there and I always follow OSNEWS and try not to get stuck on one OS.
But now, why do I like my Windows so much? Simple : I dont use explorer, outlook, messenger, mediaplayer, office, …
I have mozilla firebird (0.6), mozilla thunderbird, filezilla, openoffice, trillian, bsplayer, ethereal, superscan, foobar2000 (very good audio player), … installed.
On windows you also have a choice to run other apps and that’s what a lot of people forget.
have mozilla firebird (0.6), mozilla thunderbird, filezilla, openoffice, trillian, bsplayer, ethereal, superscan, foobar2000 (very good audio player), … installed.
Is Thunderbird actually usable as an everyday mail client? I thought it was still alpha. I’m ready to ditch Outlook Express .. have tried about 8 different email clients (including Eudora, The Bat, Mozilla Mail, etc) and haven’t found a suitable replacement yet. Mozilla Mail is pretty good, but I have been waiting for the Thunderbird fork to become stable so I can use it without Mozilla.
“Windows ONLY survives because of two things, first, it is well established and secondly because Joe and Jane average choose to run Windows based on the fact that it is the predominant operating system used at work.”
Uh, Joe and Jane average don’t know that anything but Windows even exists, although a few have recently become aware of Macintosh due to television advertisments. Probably 95% could not be described as CHOOSING Windows, it’s what came on their computer when they bought it. People don’t CHOOSE Windows anymore than residents of the former Soviet Union chose what brand of car to drive.
“”People don’t CHOOSE Windows anymore than residents of the former Soviet Union chose what brand of car to drive.””
Impressive, you managed to get a useless car metaphor and a worthless communism reference into the same post.
Someone give this guy a medal. :>
Regardless of the count or quality of the bugs, does Linux or Windows contain less spyware?
The fact that most of the world’s governments are already moving to Linux or seriously looking at doing so should be enough to answer this question.
Microsoft is having to bribe governments to stay with Windows, doing business the Neo-Con American way.