Windows and Linux

[Helladen]

> I understand this much to, but I don't give people hopes of a virus proof OS which is what they think when they hear that one OS get's less viruses than another

A normal user should use an AV software even on **Linux **(it is just that normal people don't use **Linux**), just like people who don't use AV on **Windows** usually are fools or programmers. I just meant that, people like the guy who said I am an idiot for not being able to tell if my program was a virus, was speaking out his arse, when virus detection is not perfect and not every programmer would even want to test their software on every AV.

[SkywardRiver]

> **Microsoft Windows** is coded terrible. Virus software was made to protect it. Virus software is not necessary for a good operating system like **Linux**. Although, yes having an AV for **Mac** or **Linux**-based OS is better (yes I realize Mac is based on **Unix** but they both are pretty similar), but for most people the consumption of the virus software in the background is not worth having in these environments.

LOL Some VB6 programmer talking smack about how Mircrosoft Windows is terribly coded xD

Good lord man. With narcissism like yours, maybe Hitler could've won.  >.>

[Helladen]

> Good lord man. With narcissism like yours, maybe Hitler could've won.  >.>

I code in C# thank you very much. It is my language of choice. :)

[JohnPony]

> A normal user should use an AV software even on **Linux **(it is just that normal people don't use **Linux**), just like people who don't use AV on **Windows** usually are fools or programmers. I just meant that, people like the guy who said I am an idiot for not being able to tell if my program was a virus, was speaking out his arse, when virus detection is not perfect and not every programmer would even want to test their software on every AV.

Keep your baseless rhetoric to yourself. The fact that most viruses target the Windows operating system is due to it having the largest presence. If I were writing malicious software, I would certainly develop for the system with the most users.

[Helladen]

> Keep your baseless rhetoric to yourself. The fact that most viruses target the Windows operating system is due to it having the largest presence. If I were writing malicious software, I would certainly develop for the system with the most users.

This is most definitely true, but the way Windows operates is in no way close to Linux in terms of security. Linux has had SUDO aka UAC in Windows way before it. Windows has always been behind Linux in the core design, but Windows makes up for it for making it easy for developers. That's the one thing Microsoft has done right.

[JohnPony]

> This is most definitely true, but the way Windows operates is in no way close to Linux in terms of security. Linux has had SUDO aka UAC in Windows way before it. Windows has always been behind Linux in the core design, but Windows makes up for it for making it easy for developers. That's the one thing Microsoft has done right.

I don't know what exactly qualifies you to judge the tenants of the Windows operating system. I'm not one to praise a corporation, especially one that I disagree with in almost every area, but I also know when to spot very true, I was wrong all along. Yes, Linux is superior in many ways to Windows, but the common user won't find any **actual** security advantages under Linux. Well, unless you consider my previous statement concerning the fact that not much malicious software is designed for anything but Windows.

My largest beef with you is concerning your sentiment that Windows is "terribly coded." There isn't a single person in this community that is qualified to make such a statement, especially when considering the fact that its source has never been officially released.

[SkywardRiver]

> This is most definitely true, but the way Windows operates is in no way close to Linux in terms of security. Linux has had SUDO aka UAC in Windows way before it. Windows has always been behind Linux in the core design, but Windows makes up for it for making it easy for developers. **That's the one thing Microsoft has done right.**

Oh c'mon. Nobody else can see this?

You are in no position to criticize one of the most successful companies in the world. Hell, you aren't in a position to criticize _any_ company in the world.

And FYI, just cause you program primarily in C# has no relevance to whether or not you have the standing to say that Windows is coded terribly.

I have no idea how this place can keep coming up with more sugar for your high horse, but it really needs to stop.

[Helladen]

A better word to use is terribly "designed". I consider coding and design two of the same. You can code the most beautiful code in the world, but if the design sucks, the code sucks.

I am not riding on a "high horse", just cause I stand by my beliefs. I am stating my opinion, don't like it then fine.

[JohnPony]

> A better word to use is terribly "designed". I consider coding and design two of the same. You can code the most beautiful code in the world, but if the design sucks, the code sucks.

Are we talking about the design of the software's source or the end result? They're too totally different beats.

[SkywardRiver]

> I am not riding on a "high horse", just cause I stand by my beliefs. I am stating my opinion, don't like it then fine.

Awe that's cute. More justification.

It's stating your opinion when you say: "In my opinion, Windows was coded terribly."

It's a narcissistic statement when you say: "Windows was coded terribly." Especially when you have no basis for this.

Ugh. Just so done with you xD It's actually kinda funny how you think you're not on a high horse.

[Helladen]

> Are we talking about the design of the software's source or the end result? They're too totally different beats.

The ability to work in the source-code and the end result are equally important. **Microsoft** is known to be bad at both. They  basically do not finish transitioning their OS over to a new paradigm. For example, **Vista** was an unfinished OS which had a series of problems as did WIndows 8 and 8.1\. Now, that 10 is also changing a lot, it will have problems too, because **Microsoft** doesn't polish enough. They keep changing the OS a lot and not really making a standard and sticking with it.

[Zetasis]

Well this has gotten terribly off topic…

[Helladen]

I moved the posts to another topic.

[IFX]

… I like windows for one reason. I KNOW windows. I dislike mac, for one reason. Its TOO CLOSED/CONTROLLED. on the topic of it being terribly coded, yes, its design is a little buggy, and it does have some issues from time to time. and like most os's it does deteriorate from time to time and need a new download, but I like that windows can be used by so many people, and can be used so many ways. its for the average joe. 

And i've toyed with linux a little bit.... and i find its layout clunky and annoying. just my opinion though.

On the topic of viruses, even if most virii are coded to attack windows (because of its publicity), and no antivirus out there will ever be able to stop them all, I find if i leave the porn to tumblr, and avoid sketchy downloads, the worth and usability of it all outweighs the consequence of getting a virus.

[Helladen]

**Linux** takes skill to use, but for power users it works wonders. The reason why I still use **Windows** is due to 3rd party software not being there yet, having to run **Wine**.

[Joyce]

I would say each OS has its merits depending on what the user or client wants.. Linux is highly customizable and you can get it to do exactly what you want, but it's not as intuitive as Windows in a lot of ways, Windows tends to be more user friendly and easy to get into.

As for viruses and faults, every OS has vulnerabilities and people exploiting them. With systems such as Linux these are just as common as they are with Windows, but because the install base (especially on consumer machines) is so much lower there's not nearly as many people trying to abuse said vulnerabilities. I wouldn't say any one is better than another in terms of security, in the end it's mostly up to how you set it up.

[Exception]

Literally 99.99% of the people on this site (myself included) have absolutely no reason to use Linux and would not see any benefit from using it.

(I hope we can all recognise hyperbole when we see it. Still, 99.99% probably isn't far off.)

I can't see why this topic exists, there's nothing fruitful about discussing something that hardly any member on this site has any business discussing.

[xelander]

> Literally 99.99% of the people on this site (myself included) have absolutely no reason to use Linux and would not see any benefit from using it.
>
> (I hope we can all recognise hyperbole when we see it. Still, 99.99% probably isn't far off.)
>
> Aside from the technical advantages Linux has, it also has the advantage of freedom.

[Exception]

> Aside from the technical advantages Linux has, it also has the advantage of freedom.

Most of us pretty much don't need the freedom it provides.

Why install something, re-familiarise yourself, potentially detriment yourself and suffer from the lack of (or instability of) certain applications if what you currently have works perfectly fine? You're either:

1) Doing what you're already doing on Windows with a different UI with no actual new change. Making the change to Linux was pointless.

2) Trying to appeal to a hipster circlejerk, or require special snowflake status for confirmation/appeasal. Do whatever you please, you're probably blind to the main point of this (necessity, if you were wondering).

Security? For the most part, you don't really have to care too much: just keep your antivirus well updated, don't be an idiot and download stuff from random sites, and watch where you store sensitive information/watch who can access it, and you've taken care of pretty much every security concern you could, well, need to concern yourself with.

In the instance that you actually do need to use it, wonderful, you'd never concern yourself with these stupid questions. Carry on as normal.

I'll stick to Windows because I have literally no need to use Linux and everything I could possible want to do is immediately accessible. I genuinely liked Ubuntu when I did use it, but I quickly realised that I went to the effort for absolutely no reason, I basically carried on using Windows as normal.

tldr:

* If you are undecided between using Windows or Linux, unless if you just don't want to pay for ~~pirate~~ Windows, you clearly don't have a need for Linux. In almost all use cases, _necessity_ would call for Linux.
* if it ain't broke don't fit it.

[pinguinoz]

> This is most definitely true, but the way Windows operates is in no way close to Linux in terms of security. Linux has had SUDO aka UAC in Windows way before it. Windows has always been behind Linux in the core design, but Windows makes up for it for making it easy for developers. That's the one thing Microsoft has done right.

Linux has always been behind Windows in the core design if we talk about usability and new user-friendly stuff. It doesn't even have a graphical system, the X-Windows is just an addon. Linux is a sandbox, therefore you get freedom and stability, but you lose many things on the other side.

> A better word to use is terribly "designed". I consider coding and design two of the same. You can code the most beautiful code in the world, but if the design sucks, the code sucks.
>
>  
>
> I am not riding on a "high horse", just cause I stand by my beliefs. I am stating my opinion, don't like it then fine.

People don't want to know how a car work, they don't care, they just want to drive it, and they want the car to work without having to make any tweaks or learn geek stuff. Windows has always allowed your car to run with ANY kind of hardware. I can laugh at Linux plug and play, if such thing exists.

> The ability to work in the source-code and the end result are equally important. **Microsoft** is known to be bad at both. They  basically do not finish transitioning their OS over to a new paradigm. For example, **Vista** was an unfinished OS which had a series of problems as did WIndows 8 and 8.1\. Now, that 10 is also changing a lot, it will have problems too, because **Microsoft** doesn't polish enough. They keep changing the OS a lot and not really making a standard and sticking with it.

Microsoft is one of the biggest companies in the world. The people that works there are the best of the best, light years away from us. Their standard is to make an OS usable with the less possible knowledge about computers and running in every hardware. They change lots of things because new hardware for dummies keeps appearing (Would it be comfortable to use a touch screen with Windows XP?) If I recall correctly Windows has had only two failures: Vista and ME, but the amount of triumphs is way higher.

> **Linux** takes skill to use, but for power users it works wonders. The reason why I still use **Windows** is due to 3rd party software not being there yet, having to run **Wine**.

Linux doesn't take any special skills, just takes time. What you can do in Windows with a few clicks can take a new user a few hours in Linux because he doesn't know a certain command or where a configuration file is stored. Linux is good for servers, like I said. The reason you use Windows is because it is the most successful operating system in the world, and that infinite amount of 3rd party software is the result of paying attention to the little details, something Linux doesn't and never will.

[JohnPony]

> …

I do have a bit of a background, as I am required by my university's CS program to use their Linux mainframe.

[Helladen]

I wasn't saying Microsoft sucked. I was stating their pitfalls. They do a lot of good work, but as Steve Jobs said in an interview a long time ago - "Microsoft just has no taste". They do not really have any farsight vision on anything they do, they just copy and make it good for the developers/users. The one aspect of Microsoft that is great is that they bring complex work environments to the users, such as their development tools. It's all Microsoft has done that I consider amazing. Everything else is just mediocre.

Linux does take skill and patience. Skill is the ability to do something for a long period of time and get better at it. Linux is one of these platforms where it works as  good as the user, if the user is dumb the platform sucks. It's like a platform that scales on the user's competence. Sure in some cases, you could claim that Microsoft does too, but no because most tools are already available to the user, and Microsoft's operating system is not dynamic at all. You can't alter it very easily.