Linux ROX Windows SUX
Tim Hughes
Linux Is Better Than Windows.
Linux is better than Windows.
It is much more simple than people think. Linux IS better than Windows.
Both Linux and Windows are Operating Systems (OS). That is, they control
control the interaction between software (The applications that one runs on
the computer) and the hardware. It manages the distribution of system
recourses to the different process. And in the case of Windows, stop access
to system recourses. All of those annoying messages:
"... Has Performed An Illegal Operation And Will Be Shut Down"
This means that a program needed more memory than what Windows had given it,
and Windows decides that it won't get any more, then it shuts the program
down to make sure it doesn't happen again.
If there is a network, the OS handles all data coming in and going out as it
is sent and requested by the network card. The OS is supposed to give you
the ability to run different programs. An OS should also provide security
to a computer system. It should be reliable and continue running no matter
how long it has been on for. It should endeavor to provide a user with the
most 'up time' as possible. Meaning it should not crash.
Well which OS should you chose?
Well if you consider all of the above criteria the choice should be easy.
Linux.
Firstly. Windows isn't even a proper OS, it is nothing but graphical
interface to DOS. Programs need the graphical side of Windows more than
anything. It is a shell, as Burns MacDonald put it simple:
"Repeat after me, "Windows is not an operating system - Windows is a
shell"
Do that ten times, have a beer and call me in the morning."
Microsoft claim that Windows is good at distributing system recourses, like
memory. But it isn't. Every time a program 'performs' an illegal
operation, it is because Windows hasn't provided it with enough memory. If
it managed recourses decently then it programs wouldn't crash, but they do.
I am not the only one who has been working on something, and then the
program crashes before you get a chance to save. Many times Microsoft Word
has crashed as I click on SAVE. Word asks for more memory to show the
directory list, and the contents of the directory, and Windows says NO.
I have been using Linux for my work, I have a few programs running at once,
an MP3 player, which uses quite a bit of memory, an organizer program, with
an active applet running in the background, an Office type suit, with a word
processor, a spread sheet, a database etc. I also a system monitor running,
which has a real-time graph of the current usage of system recourse. I can
run all of these things at once and never run out of memory. Linux does a
very good job of allocating the system recourses. Windows does not. Over
the past month I have not had any problems with running out of system
recourses in Linux. In Windows it is a daily occurrence, and that is no
exaggeration.
If I open up Word, and then try to play an MP3, my computer crashes. If I
try to scroll down an Internet page and listen to an MP3, then my browser
starts jumping an moving down the page erratically, as if it were struggling
to show the page with the recourses it has. And the MP3 will skip, like a
disk man if it is bumped.
Once again Linux is obliviously better than Windows at handling system
recourses.
An OS should provide a user with ability to use a network. Windows doesn't
disallow you access to a network, but Linux is better, it has the fastest
TCP/IP drivers. TCP/IP is a protocol for sending data over a network.
Linux is better at this than Windows. If Windows was better, why would many
people use Linux to host their web pages on the Internet? Because Linux is
better at it than Windows. It is possible in Windows, but it isn't as good
as Linux.
Linux is also better at file serving across networks than Microsoft's
Windows NT. NT is Microsoft's server OS. It is much faster. (See graph on
last page.)
One if the most import roles of an OS is to run programs.
Would it not make senses to use an OS that has the ability to run many
different programs?
Well it make perfect sense to me.
Linux can run, UNIX (A very powerful OS used on big servers and mainframes.
UNIX has to be the undisputed King of operating systems. But it was never
designed to be run on desktop home computers. LiNIX is a cousin of UNIX, it
was Linux was developed to be the UNIX for the home computer.) based
software, Linux based software, and using emulators, it can also happily
run, Win 3.x software, DOS, Win 9x and Win NT software.
Windows 98, for example, can run Win 9x, software, and MOST DOS. Win 98
struggles when running some DOS programs, it even struggles to run Windows
software.
Windows 98 cannot run UNIX, Linux, or Windows NT software.
Once again Linux seems to have come up trumps. It can run a multitude of
different applications from different OSs, where Windows cannot. Linux is
better at running programs.
When you are running your programs on your computer you do not want your
computer to crash. Windows has one very BIG bug. After being on for 49
days, with out being turned off, Windows hangs. It will hang at the end of
the 1176th hour. If you have a Windows machine in a company, controlling a
printer for a large network, so every body on the network can print to it,
it is quote possibly needed to be on 24 hours-a-day 7 days-a-week. A
computer being on for 49 days straight is not as uncommon as a lot of people
think. So if Windows is installed on it, it will crash. I can guarantee
that that computer will crash. Linux will not. Linux is famous for its
reliability. It is 2nd only to UNIX. Linux is so reliable that many people
do use Linux as a server. And it is a very good server. Better than NT, as
I said before.
If I had fifty cents for every time than something crashed in Windows, or
even only for every time Windows it self crashed, then I would be richer
than Bill Gates. Many would blame my computer, say that it is not fast
enough for running Windows. But I a sure you it is.
It is:
PII 266 (equiverlent, it is an IBM 686 MII 333.)
64 MB RAM.
8.4 GB ATA HD
Voodoo 2 12 MB
as well as the standard 4 MB video card, sound card, and CD-ROM.
Windows 'requires' a high end 486, two large chip jumps below mine, at
around 66 MHz, mine is a 333 MHz, and 8 MB RAM, I have 8 times that amount.
My computer has more than enough resources to go around, but Windows always
crashes.
Linux is a lot more reliable. I have never had to re-boot due to it
crashing, and I have never had a program crash on me in Linux. It happen
all the time in Windows.
Linux is impossible to crash, where on the November 8th this year in the
space of ten minutes my computer re-booted its self 3 times. Windows was to
blame. There is nothing else that it could have been. I had not added, nor
had I taken out any hardware, the computer was exactly the same as it was
the day before. Picture working on a very important project, and then for
no reason your screen goes blank, and the computer re-boots itself. All is
lost. But in Linux that doesn't happen. If a program does crash in Linux
it is possible to jump to another virtual terminal and fix the program. If
a program crashes in Windows, all it lost, and it won't come back.
Reliability is of the utmost importance on big servers, even on the school
server at my school, which runs NT. And that server has crashed a number of
times in the last month. It crashed on the 17th of September, a day when a
lot of CATs were due. Linux doesn't just crash like Windows. To a company,
a server MUST be 'up' all the time. Linux could provide that, where Windows
cannot.
An OS must be able to provide security to the computer system, and the data
on it. Linux's security is second only to UNIX's, of which it was modeled
off. Windows security on a 'stand alone' system, one which is not connected
to a main server (Could be on a network, but not a server, I.E. NT), has
basically no security, you do not need a password to get into Windows. And
if you set up a Windows Logon, with a user name and password, pressing the
escape key, or clicking cancel will get anyone past this. Linux requires a
password to get into it. Then only the root password has access to
everything, the other user names are blocked from doing different things,
like deleting data that does not belong to them, or allowing them to look at
data of another users.
Linux has a security system, where Windows lacks one.
Linux is better than Windows when it comes to security.
Linux is a better operating system than Windows. It does all of the mundane
tasks of an OS, like handling hardware, running programs, handling system
recourses. It runs more programs, and runs them better. It is more
reliable. And has far superior security.
Linux IS better than Windows.
--
Tim Hughes
e-mail: hug...@melbpc.org.au, t.hu...@kingswoodcollege.vic.edu.au
English
Folio Piece - Linux
This was typed in Linux.
<grin>
your frustrations due to a lack of knowledge.
It appears to me that you are attempting to begin an argument that you
cannot back up. Your terminology is extremely weak, at most, and every
single one of your problems are YOUR problems. I would be willing to bet
that if I had the EXACT same machine as your "windows" machine, I would have
it running with ALL of your software, without a problem. I'm sure I could
accomplish this without even having to rewrite the kernel (as you would with
linux).
What do you mean by windows? (Do you even know?) FYI, buddy: Win9X is a
pseudo-shell, loosely integrated with the OS; however, NT/2000's graphical
interface is interlaced with the kernel. You obviously know absolutely
nothing about the flavors of NT/2000. As with any software application: If
you don't know how to use it, you don't like it. (If I may get vulgar) You
know jack shit.
Q: Security: With NTFS, Kerberos transitive trusts and DPA support, how is
linux more secure?
A: It's not. The only real difference is that when a linux security hole
is found you have to write your own fix while in NT you install an hotfix
(within a day or so of discovery).
Points: Me 1 You 0
Q: Processor: Does windows have the ability to run multiple applications
is not possible without application error?
A: Yes, NT will run multiple applications at once; however, if the
application is written improperly (bad hooks or traps) it can interfere with
the operation of the system.
Points: Me 2 You 0
Q: Performance: Which is a faster webserver?
A: http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1015266,00.html will
explain it all (unbiased parties... it'll make you linux people cry)
Points: Me 52 You 0
Q: Memory: Which handles memory the best?
A: Linux.... until the release of Windows 2000. System resource use in
general drops relatively with 2000, but for now, linux has this one.
Points: Me 52 You 1
Q: Hardware: Which supports hardware better?
A: Depends on which "Windows" you are using. 95 handles well, NT will work
fine if you are supplied the correct drivers from the manufacturer, but 2000
and 98 kick all possible ass at handling all hardware resources. Linux...
hunt the net for a driver or write one. (However in the latest kernel
release, many improvements were made)
Points: Me 55 You 1.5
Q: Software compatability: Which can run the most software? Which is most
interchangable with platforms?
A: Windows NT is compatable with the following: 16&32bit windows apps
(source and binary), POSIX source and OS/2 source and binary. Windows 9X:
16&32bit windows apps (the others I don't know). All windows flavors have
shells that will allow the operation of any posix/linux/unix binary. Linux
will run POSIX applications... that's it. (btw.. do you even know what
posix is?)
Points: Me 70 You 1 (you lose half a point for having some screwed
up facts in your message)
Q: What is your biggest problem?
A: You (just like 80% of the linux community) do not understand that 1.
"Windows" includes Windows NT/2000 (which has better security features than
linux). 2. Passwords are required for NT/2000 and can be forced on Win9X
with the implementation of proper security policies (you have to pull a
linux and get your hands messy, but it can be done) 3. You don't know
anything about the structure of the "windows."
Points: Me 100 You 0
You finished with a score of 0 because after the software question, you lost
3, but I gave you two back because I felt sorry for you.
One quick question for you... This was written in linux... does linux not
have any sort of grammar check? I thinks you needs to writ one.
<grin>
Tim Hughes <hug...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
news:80bp3u$soh$1...@possum.melbpc.org.au...
Sparky
but there is something I had to add. About 50 times during Tim's diatribe,
he states that an illegal operation is caused when Windows runs out of
system resources because it doesn't know how to handle it. This is, of
course, moronic bullshit. An illegal operation has abso-fuckin-lutley
nothing to do with the amount of memory the system has, or Windows
allocates. It is caused when an application attempts to use memory
incorrectly, or makes an invalid function call. This means the app is
screwed up. This isn't a really in-depth description, but is has nothing to
do with running out of memory.
<grin> <ju...@dropstar.com> wrote in message
news:80cbik$d...@journal.concentric.net...
> I can't decide which is worse: your ignorance and blanket statements or
> your frustrations due to a lack of knowledge.
>
> It appears to me that you are attempting to begin an argument that you
> cannot back up. Your terminology is extremely weak, at most, and every
> single one of your problems are YOUR problems. I would be willing to bet
> that if I had the EXACT same machine as your "windows" machine, I would
have
> it running with ALL of your software, without a problem. I'm sure I could
> accomplish this without even having to rewrite the kernel (as you would
with
> linux).
>
> What do you mean by windows? (Do you even know?) FYI, buddy: Win9X is a
> pseudo-shell, loosely integrated with the OS; however, NT/2000's graphical
> interface is interlaced with the kernel. You obviously know absolutely
> nothing about the flavors of NT/2000. As with any software application:
If
> etc.....
Tim Hughes
if you think that windows (including 2000, ohh ... I'm sorry, Win 2000 is
only a beta, not a 'real' program, and it SUX) sooo good, then every thing
you say just be either extracted from your rear end, or just plan nonsense.
Sequrity, on a computer on a LAN, with out an NT server, has not enough
sequrity, you CAN press esc. WOW what a password, pressing ESC no one will
every work that one out, and I would like to see you try to get windows
running on my computer, it is just too full of bugs.
I have never had to re-ANYTHING to the Linux Kernal, it doesn't just break
down like windows, never, and why don't you do it to Windows 9x because it
doesn't have one!!!! But if Windows ever does get one, then YOU will be
fixing it all the time, because it WILL be full of bugs.
I have never had to write a fix for a linux securite hole, because I haven't
found any, and don't say it is because I haven't look, me and my friends
spend weeks trying to get into each others computers, to test each others
security. Now, wouldn't you be scared if I told you I could format your
harddrive with only knowing your IP? There is another bug in Windows,
Myself and 2 friends found it at a LAN party, we managed to format a
computer only knowing the IP, don't believe?? Fine be like that, but it is
true. Oh and Linux is more than capable of running Win aps, HELLO !!!! ANY
ONE HOME, have you not even heard of WINE, yes WINE, not only does it have
alchole in it but it is also a very tide piece of work, I use it to run many
Windows programs, ie. 3.x, 9x and yes even NT.
And all of these "problems that you found with Linux and said that we would
fix it by programing a fix, that it a GOOD thing, it means that it can be
fixed, and that it can be done on the spot, and for a large firm, fixing a
security issue is rather important, they would rather have it done on the
spot instead of waiting around for ages.
BTW go to here to find something that you might find useful:
http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/issue/0,4537,2196106,00.html
(addvicates of NT wil cry, and LINUX users will just say, yeah every one
knows that, don't they???? I do.)
Here is another good web page that I think you should look at:
http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/story/story_3505.html
That should shut every Windows 2000 crazy people dead.
And YES I do know what POSIX is: Portable Operating System Interface.
So don't feel so high ad mighty do you, thinking that WIN (in general, 9x
3.x and NT, yes and even 2000.) is better than anything.
When it isn't, oh with your point scoring thing.
Doesn't crash, 20 more for me.
Programs, take twenty from you because YOU were wrong.
You gave your self 50 points for claiming NT to be a faster Web server, well
compared with allocating system recourse, of which you gave me only one
point, I think that it is fairly low on the list of priorities, so I give
you 2 points for it, not 50, not that I agree.
so lets cheack those scores again:
me: 20
you: NOT MUCH because, once agian you are wrong.
I can't see how Installing Linux is getting your hands dirty, I mean you
said that you have to get your hands dirty to get better security, but you
don't. After you have installed it, the security is already there, in
Windows, to get some kind of security, which still doesn't stop access to
the system, you have to get your hands dirty in policies. So their does the
rest of your points, and some more for me.
So other points you neglted to mention in your rebuttal (which you have
every right to), can you tell me, honsetly that you have never had to
re-boot your (Win 9.x or NT) computer because it has crashed? Have you never
got an Illegal operation message?
I DON'T THINK SO!!! So ... what is your reason for negleting this? Well
hear is your answer, BECAUSE WINDOWS IS ABOUT AS RELIABLE AS MY AN OLD CAR.
It works sometimes, then when you need it most, it dies!!!
And you also negleted to mention the bug of the 49 day crash. There we are
more points for me.
Face it. YOU are wrong, Windows SUX, Linux does not.
BYE BYE
Tim Hughes
has a bug if it is performing Illegal operations, not windows.
Well let me see .... Yes it is Windows fault. I get feaquent Illegal
Operations performed by Exploer.exe, (WINDOWS it self if you didn't know,
NOT Exploring C:, but EXPLOER.EXE) I also have rundll performing illagel
operations, and numerous windows 9x utils, and apps, and what ever.
Including Word and Excel, how fucked could Microsoft be if its own software
stuffs up its own operating system ??????? WELL ????!????
AT this point I would also like to give an example of how stuffed windows is
this is from alt.windows, and is real, cheach it for your self.
First day with my Windows '98 software and my new computer. I didn't like
the
way the person set up my computer so I went into Properties and applied the
Window Standard (Large) setting. Later, when talking with the computer
person,
he mentioned that if had gone into Settings and just set the screen settings
to
640 x 480 pixels everything would look bigger. He didn't tell me, however,
not
to do BOTH. Now the Properties screens are so large that I can't get to the
buttons on the bottom to reset them to something smaller. I can't make the
Properties box smaller since the sides or corners refuse to move in. I've
put
away the tool bar and I've shoved the top bar up so far I can't see it
anymore
(don't laugh) and I STILL CAN'T GET TO THE BUTTONS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE
SCREEN
THAT WILL HELP ME SAVE NEW SETTINGS. There has to be a way out of this,
isn't
there? I'd hate to think I f-upped my computer on the first day I had it.
Can
anyone *please* help me.
TIA!
Hmm.... Only one day, and windows has already gone fucky.
I know how to fix it, but Windows shouldn't break done like this in the
first place.
Sparky <spa...@dontspammeyoupricks.net> wrote in message
news:s2ke86...@news.supernews.com...
> I feel the need to chime in here too. I agree with most of what <grin>
says,
> but there is something I had to add. About 50 times during Tim's diatribe,
> he states that an illegal operation is caused when Windows runs out of
> system resources because it doesn't know how to handle it. This is, of
> course, moronic bullshit. An illegal operation has abso-fuckin-lutley
> nothing to do with the amount of memory the system has, or Windows
> allocates. It is caused when an application attempts to use memory
> incorrectly, or makes an invalid function call. This means the app is
> screwed up. This isn't a really in-depth description, but is has nothing
to
> do with running out of memory.
>
>
> <grin> <ju...@dropstar.com> wrote in message
> news:80cbik$d...@journal.concentric.net...
> > I can't decide which is worse: your ignorance and blanket statements or
> > your frustrations due to a lack of knowledge.
> >
> > It appears to me that you are attempting to begin an argument that you
> > cannot back up. Your terminology is extremely weak, at most, and every
> > single one of your problems are YOUR problems. I would be willing to
bet
> > that if I had the EXACT same machine as your "windows" machine, I would
> have
> > it running with ALL of your software, without a problem. I'm sure I
could
> > accomplish this without even having to rewrite the kernel (as you would
> with
> > linux).
> >
> > What do you mean by windows? (Do you even know?) FYI, buddy: Win9X is
a
> > pseudo-shell, loosely integrated with the OS; however, NT/2000's
graphical
> > interface is interlaced with the kernel. You obviously know absolutely
> > nothing about the flavors of NT/2000. As with any software application:
> If
> > etc.....
>
>
Jamie Bond
problem, and I think that is how I fixed it. The one thing I do not
remember well enough is which key to press while booting, in order to get
into safe mode. Is it esc. or ctrl?
Tim Hughes wrote in message <80dunl$39i$1...@possum.melbpc.org.au>...
or
>> > your frustrations due to a lack of knowledge.
>> >
>> > It appears to me that you are attempting to begin an argument that you
>> > cannot back up. Your terminology is extremely weak, at most, and every
>> > single one of your problems are YOUR problems. I would be willing to
>bet
>> > that if I had the EXACT same machine as your "windows" machine, I would
>> have
>> > it running with ALL of your software, without a problem. I'm sure I
>could
>> > accomplish this without even having to rewrite the kernel (as you would
>> with
>> > linux).
>> >
>> > What do you mean by windows? (Do you even know?) FYI, buddy: Win9X is
>a
>> > pseudo-shell, loosely integrated with the OS; however, NT/2000's
>graphical
>> > interface is interlaced with the kernel. You obviously know absolutely
>> > nothing about the flavors of NT/2000. As with any software
application:
>> If
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Sparky
simply stated that your description of an illegal operation was totally
wrong. I also have seen IPF's and Fatal Exceptions, but basically never on a
clean system. I know you will simply blow this off, but as someone who has
been supporting a variety of systems for several years now, Windows by
itself is very stable. I can guarentee you that I could install Windows 95,
98 or NT on any machine with brand name hardware and it would work
flawlessly basically forever. However when we start sticking on all sorts or
third-party device drivers and apps, problems start popping up. Of course,
this is never the application vendors fault, it is always the fault of MS,
even though the problem didn't exist previously. (This is sarcasm, by the
way.) I know that people in this newsgroup will blow this off or say that I
am in the pay of MS, and frankly I don't care. I have a totol of 6 machines
I use at home and work with a variety of Windows installed (and one Mac),
and pretty much the only time I have to do any hardcore fixing is when I
have fucked something up myself. The machine I use most of the day was
originally installed over 2 years ago with retail Windows 95 and has since
been upgraded multiple times with different versions of IE and Win98, not to
mention all sorts of apps, and it runs like a charm. The reason for this is
that I don't install every shareware piece of crap program I run across. I
have also installed and used several beta versions of win2k in the past 6
months, and only had a crash a couple of times. Not bad for a beta.
And by the way, Windows 9x does have a kernel, it's just not sitting there
for you to rewrite. Also, the message you posted in from the other newsgroup
doesn't point out a bug in windows, it just shows that no matter what you
do, some doofus will find a way to screw himself. All that is required to
fix his problem is to use the tab key to get down to the ok button and then
press enter. I have fixed display problems on systems where the whole screen
is scrambled due to a bad monitor refresh rate, his problem is a piece of
cake.
Tim Hughes <hug...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
news:80dunl$39i$1...@possum.melbpc.org.au...
Brian Bosh
do have it set to make backup copies, right? :). If not, to boot into safe
mode, press F8 while the Starting Windows screen comes up... The time when
BIOS hands the computer to DOS. The splash screen hasn't yet appeared, DOS
text is still there, that's when to push F8. Then just select Safe Mode
from the list.
Brian
Tim Hughes <hug...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
> Sparky <spa...@dontspammeyoupricks.net> wrote in message
> news:s2ke86...@news.supernews.com...
> > I feel the need to chime in here too. I agree with most of what <grin>
> says,
> > but there is something I had to add. About 50 times during Tim's
diatribe,
> > he states that an illegal operation is caused when Windows runs out of
> > system resources because it doesn't know how to handle it. This is, of
> > course, moronic bullshit. An illegal operation has abso-fuckin-lutley
> > nothing to do with the amount of memory the system has, or Windows
> > allocates. It is caused when an application attempts to use memory
> > incorrectly, or makes an invalid function call. This means the app is
> > screwed up. This isn't a really in-depth description, but is has nothing
> to
> > do with running out of memory.
> >
> >
> > <grin> <ju...@dropstar.com> wrote in message
> > news:80cbik$d...@journal.concentric.net...
> > > etc.....
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Danny
especially win 98 which is just one big bug I recently installed Linux which
I have to say it is hard and not just the installation the whole thing. you
see if you want Linux to be a success which I would love it to be you have
to make it more accessible with software and more easy to use for us
armatures until then Microsoft will rule the software :)
Tim Hughes <hug...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
news:80bp3u$soh$1...@possum.melbpc.org.au...