Talk:Comparison of Windows and Linux/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

feel

there is something about this article that does not feel right. Its not something that you would find in an encyclopedia. If i want to compare the two why dont i just go to the article about windows and the article about linux? Why do we have to have another article that by nature cant inform anymore than the 2 existing articles on each subject matter. Whats next an article that compares Paris Hilton to Lindsay Lohan? Why don't i go across now and create it. See how long it lasts. --220.237.166.156 13:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahh i am an idiot i totally put the wrong tag on. TAking it off now... but i still think this article should be deleted. --220.237.166.156 13:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that there are about 100 or more comparison articles on Wikipedia. So you're wrong! Comparison articles are good, and this article will end up being a really good one because a lot of us are putting a lot of work into it SO STOP TRYING TO GET IT DELETED! Hendrixski 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You are not the master of Wikipedia. If people want it deleted, they go through the process. {Slash-|-Talk} 21:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to be master of anything. I just don't want some 15 year old fan-boy to say "this page isn't pro-Linux, so I'll make them delete it". All I want is for some IT guy to be able to show this page to his boss and say "I think we should use Operating System A for this task, and Operating System B for this task, and here's why". It's a humble goal, but it keeps me motivated to keep improving this page. And I assume that other people have similar motivations, and I'm sure they all felt equally angry when they saw it nominated for deletion. Hendrixski 02:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
What I want is for this to go up for deletion again. There was an incredible spike of activity after that nom. {Slash-|-Talk} 07:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


I think this article isn't as bad as the many tags and this discussion imply, but there is a lot of room for improvement. It is perhaps too long to be read by such people who might be interested in this information. There are certainly some minor factual errors. I agree that the "feel" isn't quite right and that we should work on this. But I see no reason for deletion. --Theosch 11:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

While I will concede that the "feel" of this article is not quite there yet, I would like to point out that it "feels" better than what it used to be. If you remember, this used to "feel" a message board between Windows fan-boys and Linux zealots and was very uncomfortable for anyone to read. Now it's pretty sterilized, and _most_ of it is in a NPOV. Perhaps it has become too sterile? Like a hospital. I am interested to hear how we can improve the "feel" of this page even more. Then we can take immediate action and breathe fresh life into it. Hendrixski 15:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
One thing that was bothering me was the hierarchy of the sections: first "Desktop", but then with a lot of sub-sections applying to both desktops and servers, and then a very brief section on servers. I've tried to make this more logical by making all the sub-sections to main sections. --Theosch 09:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I like the new section ordering! It feels less choppy now. :) A few sections could stand to be merged; perhaps Stability and Security? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hendrixski (talk • contribs) 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC).



This article is going backwards

I did a great deal of work on this a month ago to add a stronger Windows presence. The tone of the article was as close to neutral as I could get with my dated Linux knowledge. The idea was that those more versed in Linux would then add more specific information from that operating system to support my generalizations.

Instead, most of the relevant Windows information, and even some of the Linux specifics, were thrown away to the detriment of readability and neutrality.

Specific grievances:

  • No clarification as to the Windows version or subversion. 'XP' is implied, which ignores historical and future perspective.
  • Little continuity between sections. Various subsections have been butchered such that the previous text is now out of context, or suffers poor readability.
  • The parts removed tend to be necessary background.
  • Huge swaths of the 'stability' and 'games' sections have been removed. Games are one of the primary reasons Windows such a strong desktop presence; how can you ignore that?
  • 'Security' is also emasculated; it's all broad strokes, no specifics. If Linux is more secure, I want to know why. The same with Windows.

The tables have improved, but the actual text is far more biased, incomplete, and poorly written than it was in the version I left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_Windows_and_Linux&oldid=93720982

New information from the current article should be integrated into that one, or one of the succeeding revisions with grammatical corrections.

  • One more thing -- To do justice to this comparison, additional information beyond the direct scope of the comparison is not only necessary, but required. The line below about 'viruses induced by social engineering' *should* be included on that account, because it impacts the perceieved value of security measures.

You can't assume the reader knows the context. If you write that such and such a feature is an advantage, you have to provide the 'why', even if it's only a generalization. Then you can link somewhere else for the specifics. This is a fundamental tenet of writing these articles; readers shouldn't have to thumb through a dozen additional articles to understand the broad basis of what you're talking about, and why it's relevant.

Relevance is the area the text of this article lacks the most. Too many facts, not enough depth, not enough support.

Dave Indech 14:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should point out what NPOV means for this article. This is NOT meant to say that Linux is better that Windows, nor the opposite. This is NOT meant to say that the two systems are the same, either. Actually, We should make no judgment at all.
So what should we write about? There are plenty of differences between GNU/Linux and Windows so there's plenty of stuff to write. And that's all we should write. The final article will be a guide so that users can say "hey i like this more" or "hey this scares me" and decide which is best for them. If we get it right, we can write something which both Linux-enthusiasts and Windows-enthusiasts will agree upon, each thinking "hey, that's why I like my system!".
No it's not easy. I'm for the Windows side and most of you are not. But professionals should be able to get over that, and only write about facts. Possibly in a tidy and not-too-logorrheic way.
I hope these can be taken as serious guidelines for serious people, preventing article deletion and making this thing actually useful.
--Andylong 21:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:VERIFY. Basically "(1) Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. (2) Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. (3) The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it."

If editors had been following this policy the page wouldn't be such a god awful mess and it wouldn't have been nominated for deletion twice. AlistairMcMillan 21:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to take neutrality for granted in this page. However, yes, "world" data should be verified, characteristics of the single system should be chosen to actually represent it and don't need to be verified if they are clearly part of the system, which everyone can check for himself (I mean we don't need a website to say that the Linux bash is more important to the system than cmd is to Windows).
However, I think we should start changing something:
  • First, actually yes, "Windows" and "Linux" both mean nothing. First, we should limit our analysis to today. Nothing about past versions or future expectations. Everything else is a useless contribution to the mess.
  • I repeat: usage data, and statistic data in particular, MUST be cited with its source, which must comply with the NPOV requirement. I mean this especially for all which regards servers, which is much more hard to verify. In any case, "Microsoft says this about Windows" and "The open source community says that about Linux" can not be taken for NPOV without any further justification.
  • Perhaps we should give up with tables and use a section-subsection structure. This would help keep the article tidy. It's actually impossible (and quite ugly) to fit a (as short as possible) review into a table cell.
  • The part about Get The Facts is nonsense and has no reason to be here. What we need is just a short mention to the fact and reactions and a link to its own article (all this stuff here SHOULD be written there ONLY).
  • Do we really need a "User focus" comparison? How can it reach NPOV?
  • Once again: "Historical" comparisons are useless for this article. What use is it to know (today) that Win95 crashed because of the 16-bit subsystem? that part is for the Windows article.
It's relevant for historical perspective. Windows has a reputation for instability with versions all the way up to ME, which is still in use by some. It's important to clarify why that reputation exists, and how it no longer applies to the current product. Merely saying 'Windows is stable' (particularly without specifying versions; and what's current? XP or Vista?) is inadequate. Dave Indech 01:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Finally, I think we should write a complete introduction to the article, stating clearly what it is and what it isn't meant to be. I tan take care of this if needed. What do you think about these points? Post please...
There was an excellent introduction in the older version of the article I linked. It had OS history and clarifications, and some notes as to the expected scope of the comparisons. It was progressively erased until the result what appears now.Dave Indech 01:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
--Andylong 22:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Disagree  this article is moving forward. here's Why:
* More facts, less fluff
* Better organized tables
* Shorter, more to-the-point, sentences in the tables
* Fewer opinionated sentences
* Fewer irrelevant facts, more useful side-by-side comparisons
* Less duplication of information
So stop complaining and keep up the good work! Hendrixski 19:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


Software section

In the software section, these lines: "Many viruses do not take advantage of security vulnerabilities at all, instead relying on social engineering to convince users to bypass security installed on their machine. Other security threats involve fooling the user to give away personal information or passwords (phishing)." don't really have to be there. They are in no way comparing Linux and Windows, instead providing info about viruses (virii?) and security threats. --Blowtorch 00:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a very good point. -Slash-μιλώ 05:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Another (related) thing should be said though: most Windows bugs become critical (and dangerous at all) only if exploited under administrative rights... this has to do with the average Windows user, not with the Windows system itself. ...Andylong 11.56pm (CET), 9 Jan 2007
  • It would be a problem of the users if MS decided that: 1) there be a single Administrator account, 2) it be separated from all users (no User account is also Administrator), 3) at instalation, Administrator be always created, and always with a password. This would annoy to no end the average Windows user, but nonetheless is a security hardening they are not doing, so Microsoft/Windows is responsible for those security flaws. — Isilanes 11:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the Software section requires some work, maybe you would like to spiff it up a bit and help us make it Neutral? Migrate things that are direct comparisons into a table, etc. The sentence or two in Software can be moved into the table in Security, or deleted. Hendrixski 18:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Cost of Support, Units Used

Sorry if I'm editing this page improperly, no idea, I don't modify Wikipedia too often. Anyways, Windows support is $/yr, and Linux support doesn't offer units. Someone want to fix this? --Jake13jake 00:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Jake, good point. If you have information on this then please help us expand the article. I haven't dealt with any operating system support, though I've dealt with support from enterprise products like Cognos, and I wish I knew more about before I started. If you know anything about this topic, please help us expand the section. Some day the information you post on this page can save someone, or an entire business, a lot of headaches. Hendrixski 15:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


a bit of bias

  • Do we need to add "make up" to the facts, so that Windows doesn't look that bad, in the name of NPOV? What if GNU/Linux is better? Wouldn't it be POV to make it look like they are on par? Isilanes 17:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC
    • We need to present the facts, and all the important facts. We shouldn't leave out important aspects of Linux to make Windows seem better, but we shouldn't leave out important aspects of Windows to make Linux seem better. -Slash- 20:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
    • As a daily Linux user, occasional Windows user and former Mac user, I think all OSes have their strong and weak points - which also change with time - and we should try to compare them as fairly as possible. The article could appear less controversial if MacOS were included. We can never achieve complete neutrality, because even if all facts are all correct, quantities and omissions can be used to favor one side or the other. --Theosch 11:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You have a point. However, remember the name of the article: "Comparison of Windows and Linux". This is no place to include MacOS. — Isilanes 12:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course if this article were rewritten to include MacOS, it would have to be saved as "Comparison of Windows, Linux and MacOS" and the "Comparison of Windows and Linux" deleted. I suppose this would be considered "forking", which is one of the characteristics of Linux distributions and at the same time a strength and a weakness. --Theosch 18:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This page is devised as a dual comparison. For more generic comparisons, go to Comparison of operating systems or Comparison of BSD operating systems, and for dual comparisons with MacOS, go to Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X or Comparison of Linux and Mac OS X (the latter doesn't seem to exist, you could create it yourself, or request that it be created). I see little point in making a "tri-comparison" between Win, Mac and Linux. However, if you do see it, you could create the Comparison of Windows, MacOS and Linux page (although I advice you against it, given the kind of headaches a comparison of just two OSs can bring), but please do not mess with this page. Specifically: why not have a page devoted to compare exclusively Win vs. Linux? Do you have something against it? — Isilanes 18:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Some ideas

Hi, I made some edits on this page. I hope I clarified some things in a neutral way. This is not easy, especially in the "Permissions" section. However, I would like to make some proposals (forgive me if I contradicted myself a bit with my edits... these are afterthoughts):

  • Perhaps we should not try direct comparisons (with all of its potential for simplicism or POV). Maybe we should just provide links to specific articles. That should be the "bullet-proof NPOV solution" (Ha! I like the sound of it!)
  • More wikilinks would probably help
  • We should add sub-sections for specific fields of use beyond "Desktop" and "Server". Ideally we would choose some "typical cases" to outline differences in uses. Some random proposals:
    • Schools
    • Internet Cafè
    • Computing
    • Graphics / Media / ...
    • Software development
    • Business (needs proposals)
    • Network administration
    • ...
  • Some ideas for table items:

Installation section

An anonymous user (IP 66.66.81.124) has deleted the following paragraph:

"In Windows, installation is done through a wizard, providing little choice, but considerable user friendliness. The user must, by default, choose a partition for Windows to install itself on. Additionally, the Windows partition manager cannot resize or change partition information without destroying existing data on the disk (however, there are third party programs that can)."

Argumenting the following:

"there is not a single citation that the windows installer provides ease of use (bias towards windows), or that it doesn't provide choice (bias towards Linux). Please think before you write bias crap. thank you"

While I agree that care should be taken not to be too biased: did this user ever install Windows? (say Win98 and/or WinXP. Or are we talking about Vista here?) I mean, what choice is there in the installing wizard (besides choosing a time zone and a user name, IIRC, which I probably don't)? Does the installer offer the posibility of resizing or changing partition information? Is it not much easier to install because of this fact? (sacrifice flexibility for commodity). I'd love Windows-knowledgable wikipedians expand on this, please. — Isilanes 18:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hhhmm. Claiming that a user has no choice when using an option in one operating system seems biased against that operating system. What would be better is to have a row in the table like "options during installation" then under Windows list the 3 or 4 options available during installation, and under Linux list the 10 or so options available. Ideally the text under the tables should be kept to a minimum, and facts should be side by side in tables in a non-biased language. Hendrixski 15:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I installed this week both Debian GNU/Linux Etch and Microsoft Windows XP together with a Windows-knowledgable colleague. We started with an unpartitioned hard disk, so I partitioned and formatted it with the Debian-installer. Then I aborted the installation because when we would install Windows afterwards, it would destroy the master boot record and I would have to reinstall GNU GRUB. So then my colleague installed Windows XP. The installer automatically chose the only FAT32 partition. There was no option not to install a boot loader at all and the Windows boot loader only lists the Windows installation. This may be simple but it is certainly not user-friendly. The Debian-installer on the other hand offered all the flexibility and also provided the option to partition automatically. So it surely is more user-friendly but also hides the complexity. BTW, if the Widows-installer is a wizard then the Debian-installer is a wizard, too. -- mms 15:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Structure change

I think I am a windows-knowledgeable wikipedian so I will write as much as I can in the next days, but now I have no time. However, I have a proposal for this community: this article's structure is way too flexible (there are plain text comments inside!) and makes POV edits quite easy. I think we should consider this kind of structure:

== Feature group A ==

Microsoft Windows GNU/Linux
Feature1 Very few words, just a title for quick comparison Just a summary of what is written below
Feature2 For all you have to say in detail, you have \infty room below... ...but NO room at all for comments and explicit comparison, telling which is better for you

=== Feature1 ===

Microsoft Windows

All you have to write about feature1 in Windows...

GNU/Linux

...and in Linux. Remember: NEVER write stuff like "more flexible" "easier" "better" or so on... that will easily be out of NPOV.

=== Feature2 ===

Microsoft Windows

And so on...

GNU/Linux

...and on and on. And then another feature group, another table, and so on.



(i put nowiki's so that i wouldn't disturb the structure of this discussion page) What do you think about this one? --Andylong 19:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Agree. Sounds like a good idea. However, the article might become too lengthy... — Isilanes 13:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree I started the migration towards the current table structure, and it's a pain in the butt trying to keep everything short and to the point. We should delete all of the text underneath the tables, it's prone to biased POV's and terrible grammar.Hendrixski 20:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree. This is too rigid. Where would all the other facts go? {Slash-|-Talk} 05:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well my point is that there are no other facts... things that don't just describe one of the two OS's are comments and should not be here... --Andylong 08:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
TCoO. {Slash-|-Talk} 02:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The "other facts" are the footnotes, these are intended to help the user interpret the facts, it is not supposed to contain opinions, though it may contain new facts. The text under the tables is completely useless, always biased, and generally crap. If this article becomes a table we can get the stupid neutrality and quality tags off the top of the page. Hendrixski 20:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Total Cost of Ownership. {Slash-|-Talk} 21:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)



Notes on changes I've made

I added quite a bit to this article, but my focus has been the desktop PC space. It is unclear whether this article is also meant to compare them in a server capacity. Certainly, such a comparison would be dramatically different.

The section on 'Servers' could stand to be updated, preferably by someone with experience with both. If not, it should be removed.

As far as neutrality is concerned, I rewrote almost everything above 'Security'. I'm content with how neutral it is, though if someone would like to add additional thoughts on Linux, that would be appreciated.

Everything below Security should be rewritten. It reads like a tennis match; MS says this, Linux says that. I wouldn't mind doing the writing, but that area can stand for additional relevant links so that it can have some factual basis.

I also don't feel the Open Source arguments mesh well with this article. The source code status is relevant only insofar as it means Linux doesn't cost anything, and for general implications. While the free software movement may be a justification for choosing Linux, it has very little to do with the superiority of one OS or another for a particular purpose. One place it does bear mention is to counter Microsoft's 'security through obscurity' argument.

Dave Indech 03:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

New direction

I have begun a migration of several topics into table format so that they may add more value to the user in a side-by-side comparison. Hopefully this will make the page more legible, and will reduce the amount of "windows users claim..." and "linux users claim" text. - hendrixski

Recovery/Support

What does this have to do with anything?

  • Further, users have to constantly worry that the version of windows or office they are using will become unsupported. For *example, many small businesses rely on systems built on older versions of office, and Microsoft will not support these *older versions. Even if someone wants to purchase the older version from Microsoft, Microsoft will not sell them.

First of all, it deals almost entirely with office, which is COMPLETELY unrelated to this page. Second of all, the fact that microsoft doesn't support windows later is entirely irrelevant. If I wanted a 6-year-old distribution of linux that I downloaded supported over the phone (MS still supports windows 2000, 6 years later), it wouldn't be possible, unless I was paying for a support contract. I just recently had to upgrade my 1.5 year old version of Ubuntu to the latest version because not a single thing I downloaded would work on it, and it was impossible to find the older versions of programs that I needed to work with it. I was told (by a linux user) that the upgrade functionality was broken, so I was better to just format and reinstall. All operating systems ever have to deal with obselescance.

Edit: I changed it to that it just says that both operating systems eventually go obsolete. Support is available if you have a support contract for linux, and its available for a fee 5-6 years after the MS OS is released. I'm not sure if it is worthy of inclusion though, given that it is essentially saying "support is available for an application if you pay the vendor money", which shouldn't be a shock to anyone.

I also removed the gem whining about how windows users who have a pirated copy may have difficulty getting the tools needed from microsoft to recover their system. Well no s***, sherlock. Putting a paragraph about Windows Genuine advantage and the controversy about it SOMEWHERE is probably right, but I'm not sure it really belongs in the 'recovery' area. It affects upgrades, patches, and software in general, not just recovery.

Bongle 16:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

POV

NPOV is gone. This is totally 1 sided. -- basbryan

This is vastly un-neutral. Why don't we just rename it "Why Windows is better than Linux"? -- Gaiacarra

Is this really a good idea? The likelihood that this article will turn into an edit war is pretty high... --Kukuman 05:32, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I put it here because there is significant controversy over Microsoft vs. Linux, and it appears that this frequently leaks into Microsoft and Linux articles. Besides which, why not characterise both sides of the debate? The other thing is that controversy could be kept localised in this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:35, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Mayhaps we should just put an NPOV tag at the top of the article and leave it there until the article stabilizes into something everyone can agree to? Armedblowfish 11 April 2006
True. I'm not opposed to this article, and it might make for an interesting page. It's just that some caution should be taken when approaching this subject, as this is a pretty touchy subject for some. --Kukuman 05:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I totally agree. I would like it if someone totally rewrote my introduction, and gave a stab at characterising both sides. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:44, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


As the article's first paragraph says, the article is about arguments that each side states about its OS being the better one. The article is NOT a discussion nor a benchmark. Please don't refuse the arguments about X in the pro-X section, rather in the (not X) section. rbonvall 04:52, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)