Talk:Comparison of Windows and Linux/Archive 3

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 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Contents

Cleanup needed

Firstly, let me make clear that I take no side in this debate. I'm a Mac user; I don't care who prefers Windows to Linux or vice-versa.

This article is in severe need of cleanup or deletion. For starters, why do we care whether Windows is better than Linux or vice-versa? This article attempts to re-argue the debate, rather than writing formally about the fact that there is a debate; this is not what Wikipedia is all about.

It makes controversial claims with a severe pro-Linux slant throughout the article, and does not provide credible citations. The "pro-Windows" section ignores the most common arguments that users have for using Windows, and also contains quite a bit of anti-Windows rhetoric; the "pro-Linux" section discusses vendors and users rather than platforms.

Moreover, the article implicitly forces a false choice by implying that Windows and Linux are the only credible choices of operating system; there are plenty of alternatives that are not discussed. Why is there not a Mac OS vs. Linux article, or Linux vs. Hurd or Plan 9 vs. BSD? My guess is because there isn't a strong POV to push for those, whereas there is in this article. —donhalcon╤ 20:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Arguments

What happened to this page? The Windows section is looking less like "arguments often used in favour of Windows" - which is what I think it should be - and more like an anti-windows rant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.34.166.250 (talk • contribs)

This is what happened; a user named 00 tux (with an admitted pro-Linux bias) came along recently and rewrote large swaths of the article. Warrens 15:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

IE/WMP runs in kernel space?

Does IE/WMP run in kernel space? AFAIK, they are user mode apps. This can be verified from the task manager which show that they run in the contxt of the logged in user. And killing the processes do not cause any system unstabilty. --soUmyaSch 16:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen nothing to indicate that they run in kernel space. People might be confusing "kernel" with "operating system", and concluding that, with IE being built as an application that uses DLLs that implement a lot of the functionality (HTTP/FTP/etc. network access, HTML rendering) and that are considered "part of the operating system" (as they offer published APIs to let other applications use them), that must mean that "IE is in the kernel". The same might be the case with WMP, if a lot of the code is in the form of DLLs that other apps can use. (Safari in OS X and Konqueror in KDE are similar to IE in this regard, so the "integration" of IE in the OS or OS+desktop environment isn't exactly unique to Microsoft.)
For that matter, as far as I know, most of the GUI code runs in userland; it's only the GDI layer that runs in the kernel as of NT 4.0 (NT 3.x had a somewhat X11-ish scheme, with the low-level drawing done in the Win32 subsystem process, and the higher-level userland libraries sending it messages). Guy Harris 20:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

AL-team external links.

I have an problem with this site being linked : Anti linux team: reasons to hate linux.

Quote: "Linus Torvald (the evil sweedish man who made linux) Had a boyfreind. He ran around naked. According to this Linux website. Yuk."

I really dont think this site is much more than a troll/joke site, and mostly consists of of "LOL JOO5 Linux(EVVIL BTWW) U53R5 SUCK !!! LOL!!!11one" ( OK, that is a slight exgaduration but you get the idea ). Anybody object to the link being removed ? --2mcmGespräch 23:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay its fine they hate Linux. But why do they need to come up with these sick whatever-you-call-them s? --soUmyaSch 09:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
That site is awful, and doesn't contribute anything of lasting informational value. It has no place here. Some kids in Ireland don't like Linux? big effing deal. Warrens 10:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

AL-Team webmaster follow up

Sorry for the inconvience. I didn't add the link and am now researching the unaproved link. I found out that wrong quote about Linus on a (as I have now discovered) joke website. We are serious and the AL-Team is not a joke.

Again, sorry for the inconvience.

== I will remove that misleading quote ASAP. ==

We just wanted to warn novices about the dangers of replacing windows for linux, but maby went overboard. I might add a page called "Comparing Windows and Linux" in the future. Maby the AL-Team is a little too biast, OK OK TOO biast!

If you disagree or want to contact us about anymore incorrect statments, email al-team@hotmail.com Now if you don't mind, i'm off for a cup of tea.

thanks, al-team webmaster al-team@hotmail.com

THANKS, QUOTE REMOVED FROM AL-TEAM SITE

Remind me again how this contributes to the discussion? --DKR

Proposed Invitations

Perhaps, we could invite a Linux/FOSS advocate: either Linus Torvalds and/or Richard Stallman, and an advocate of Windows: Probably Michael Nash or equivalent to contribute to the article's double-edged nature. We may get more inside, developmental and technical information from it. Let me know what you think. --DKR

Rename article?

I think the name of this article needs to be fixed - this isnt a competition, its a comparison. Most computing comparison articles (also see its subcategories) are formatted in the style of Comparison of x and y. Does anyone agree that this article should be moved to Comparison of Windows and Linux? Remy B 07:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good proposal to me. It is as it always was T | @ | C 07:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Done. Remy B 07:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I was expecting to see more technical comparison of the two OSes, such as the differences in the kernels, userspace, file systems supported, number of CPUs/RAM supported, etc. That information is at the bottom, but even that little bit is mostly opinion and lean on facts. We should just present the facts here and leave the opinions on what's better for Slashdot. Pgk1 18:14, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

Added some missing citations and references, and some handy external links.

changes

Added some missing citations and references, and some handy external links.

Windows is described by many users as being unstable
This is bad use of grammar to disguise the writers opinion. Who are these "many users"? I'm sure "many users" also find windows to be perfectly stable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.53.44 (talk • contribs)

General comments

Hello. I like they way the article is set up for the "technical comparisons" section, and I think perhaps this style of comparing individual points (rather than having the big blocks for each platform) could be adopted throughout the article. Is anyone else working on this (or wanting to), or shall I give it a go? --H2g2bob 10:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Added rewrite tag --H2g2bob 00:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Rewrite is done. It's still needs references and is POV, but now has some structure. This also removed some duplication. --H2g2bob 12:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Patents and Legal Concern

This section contradicts itself. SCO's legal action suggests that FOSS is involved in legal action, while comments by OSRM suggest that no FOSS has never been sued for patent infringement. This is probably some weasel words by one side or another, or some lack of understanding on my part, so I'll look into this. --H2g2bob 20:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

SCO's legal action isn't about patent infringement. It was about "trade secrets" and "copyrights"; the "trade secrets" part has since been dropped. See our own SCO-Linux controversies for more. I've removed the contradict tag. AlistairMcMillan 01:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Studies related to Microsoft into Comparison of Windows and Linux?

I noticed someone put a merge tag to merge Studies related to Microsoft into Comparison of Windows and Linux. There's no discussion as yet (as far as I can see) so I thought I'd start it. --H2g2bob 10:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Agree It should probably be in a section here. --H2g2bob 10:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As most of the stuff is covered here, and as nobody's said anything - nobody ever talks to me :'( - I'm just going to go ahead and merge these. Just try and stop me! --H2g2bob 20:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I was stopped ;-) see talk on Studies related to Microsoft. --H2g2bob 11:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

windows / linux logo removal

Hey everyone, I've commented out the Windows and Linux logos at the top of the article. I don't want to do this, but I do have some fair-use concerns about the Windows logo, for two reasons: one, this article is a comparative analysis of Windows and Linux, not simply a description of Windows itself, which, IMO, puts us outside of Wikipedia's fair-use rationale for logos. Two, we should be limiting our use of non-free images to places where non-free content can substantially add value to an article.

Of course, this only applies to the Windows logo. The Tux image is available under a much more permissive license, so there are no fair-use concerns here, but I removed it anyhow out of fairness and an interest in keeping things balanced. Warrens 23:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

Can whoever added the "contradict" tag explain their reasoning? Thanx. 68.39.174.238 00:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

See the "Patents and Legal Concern" section above. AlistairMcMillan 01:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I added it, as one source referenced said no FOSS had been sued for patent infringement, while other sources mentioned lawsuits (I think these were the SCO lawsuits, who sued IBM rather than a FOSS project. However, they were suing IBM for code included in the Linux kernel). So it is self-consistant, sort of :) --h2g2bob 12:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you read my reply in the "Patents and Legal Concern" section above? Here it is again...

SCO's legal action isn't about patent infringement. It was about "trade secrets" and "copyrights"; the "trade secrets" part has since been dropped. See our own SCO-Linux controversies for more. I've removed the contradict tag.

So... no contradiction. AlistairMcMillan 20:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

GNU/Linux

Why is "GNU/Linux" stated as being a more accurate term than "Linux"? Isn't it a matter of opinion, as stated in Linux naming controversy? --Pyreforge 14:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

assertion of "required" reverse engineering

This means that, when comparing the way these two operating systems perform various tasks, some amount of reverse engineering, benchmarking, and guesswork must be used to determine how and why Windows performs certain tasks.

The problem with this assertion is that there is an opposing argument of simply asking Microsoft what a part of Windows does. Also, are parts of Windows actually reverse-engineered for parts of this article? It doesn't appear so... RN 06:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Asking MS isn't equivalent to reading the source code of Linux. It isn't fair to compare the two. The vendor could lie or just answer sloppily. With Open Source you can see for yourself. Basbryan 02:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Supercomputer OS percentage

In the section "Servers and Workstations" it is said that 73.4% of the top 500 supercomputers run Linux. Because this article is about comparison of linux and windows, the viewer may think of a complement percentage of 26.6% of the supercomputers to run Windows, and would never think of 0.40%. I suggest adding the windows pecentage to the article or even replace the percentages with the numbers, which seems to be more clear to me, since 500 is also a clear number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali H. (talk • contribs) 01:27, 23 July 2006

Good point. I've edited the article to fix this oversight. AlistairMcMillan 02:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed Text

I just removed two extraneous paragraphs from the intro which were unnecessary and contained inappropriate POV. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 23:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This is just stupid

You guys, come on. Any experienced geek IMO has solid experience with both Windows and Linux. I used Windows versions 95 through XP, and about a year ago I stumbled across INSERT on the Ultimate Boot CD. I had recently read an article in CPU Magazine about Knoppix, and seeing that INSERT was based on Knoppix I decided to give Knoppix a try. At the time the latest Knoppix release was 3.7, so it only included KDE and not GNOME, but I was very impressed with how easy it was to get started - and those of us who have used multiple distros know how unorthodox Debian can be. And I practically passed out when I got the Compiz window manager working. I had seen (cough) Windows Vista betas and I simply could not believe how Compiz whooped Vista's butt. And I've been witnessing firsthand the corruption that is occurring in the proprietary software world. (Think Treacherous Computing. One of my friends found inactive TPM drivers in Vista beta 2.)

My experience with Windows and Linux can be summarized in this: Linux is the ultimate OS when it comes to speed and security, hands down. But when I want to play games or develop programs such as the ExperienceUI, Windows wins, because Windows is simply more compatible with existing programs than Linux is. I'm sure this would be different if Linux had taken off like Windows did, but it didn't. Windows has a very solid user base at the moment, and thus I consider it necessary to have a copy of Windows around while developing software. I'm definitely on the side of Linux here, but Windows still has its strong points and this article needs to show them.

well i agree with you in general but one point, windows is not better that linux when it comes to programing, if you use a highly flexible distro like Gentoo and spend sometime tweaking it into a programming machine (excluding all the crap that kde-meta gives you) you will get one of the best programing environment ever. i also think that in linux it is easier to find support, not only in regard to programming, but everything in general. just my 2 cents...


Technical Comparisons

kernel - Kernel Space vs User Space, Memory Management

Device drivers issues are crucial for kernel stability issues both on Linux and Windows. Linux drivers are 50% of the kernel source code, but account for 85% of the bugs. Both Linux and Windows use predominantly kernel mode drivers, but one large difference is the graphics/printing system AND their drivers since NT 4.0 (GDI/GDI+) - in Windows in kernel mode, whereas X-Windows, and printing is in user mode. Ironically, it has been argued that Linus's insistence on an unstable kernel ABI as part of the development model (forcing the drivers into the Linux kernel tree) leads to the best stability, as opposed to binaries on Linux or Windows.

Another inescapable issue is that of kernel size. Windows is many times larger in source code and binary - both in kernel mode and user mode.

Considering that the bugrate per line is many times lower for the Linux kernel than commercial software, that would require a tall feat for Microsoft to maintain similar stability (as claimed in the article).

For refs for the above, plus more kernel comparison see Kernel Comparison Linux vs Windows

kernel aside, general security architecture issues (virus, administrator usage) might be the dominant problems nowadays for Windows - anyone have insight into Windows issue priorites?

--Widefox 14:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Windows Activation

The "Ideology and Origins" -> "Windows" section said:

At the end of 2005 Microsoft began "Windows Genuine Advantage Notifications", an anti-piracy effort. This is an update to Windows which checks whether the client's Windows XP system is a legal copy, otherwise it reminds user to purchase a genuine one. This really tries to make users believe that Activation is really "high class", but when Microsoft said that customers thought that activation was a good idea, just Google it.[1]

The last sentence doesn't make sense, and I can't see how the paragraph is relevant, so I removed it. -- Felix Wiemann 14:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentence

From "Recovery":

You can always get the source code for any GNU/Linux program years or decades after the program was written.  This is not true with Microsoft.

Not relevant in that section. --Cornflake pirate 12:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

How can a statement be more relevant?01001 05:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is relevant because if you have the source code and you can always recover from anything.01001 05:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Switching costs

I have no idea where this section is going, as there is a study section below there. The direction of this need to be more towards desktop users if we are going to have both sections so there is distinctness; so tco studies like

The IBM analysts show that TCO of Linux is lower than Windows.[1]

are out of place it seems. Perhaps a more detailed description of the costs a home faces - i.e. software switching costs etc.? Right now it is just a vague overview seemingly full of assumption... RN 00:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed that section, as it doesn't really fit there, and it's basically a duplicate of the Total Cost of Ownership stuff. Some parts of it I've transfered to that bit. --h2g2bob 19:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Games and Graphic drivers

i'm not good in english and i get reverted so i added this here:

Games

not all games run under linux:

Graphic drivers


Experts are needed

This article feels like it was written at a grade 4 level. Experts objective and unbiased opinions are needed. And why is there a tag for this page that contains: Category: Wikipedia articles that are too technical??? 24.235.137.120 01:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, removed the tag. I think I may need to look through this article properly when I have a bit of time (to remove bias). This page is always a nightmare because you have linux and windows fanboys making "improvements". --h2g2bob 10:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Some expert opinion

I use both systems extensively, and I would have to say Linux is trying hard to catch up in the desktop world, but it has a couple of downsides in that regard:
- Its non-descriptive directory names are a pain for new users (who needs etc usr var bin ? they are yet another puzzling feature)
- Support for drivers is often still difficult for linux-use. You need to either compile your own drivers (compile? what is compile? etc) for your USB Wireless interface, or a driver simply does not exist for the linux o.s.
- Linux and Mac user share worldwide is only 8% still: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp so developers are often faced the choice to either target towards the 90% of the Windows users, or to the 8%. Preferably both of course, but such is not always an option.

Interesting OS security comparisons are here: http://www.zone-h.org/component/option,com_remository/Itemid,47/func,select/id,60/
Even though it is stated that since 2004 security is an application based issue, and not related to the OS, it clearly shows how being the dominant system in a market means you will encounter the most problems. Hence; Linux servers are more often the victim, and Windows desktops are more often the victim of breaches.

I was somewhat surprised to see how the Example screenshot of Windows is a silly default installed XP desktop, yet the Linux KDE screenshot is that of a user having installed all kinds of extras plus showing them activated on a much larger desktop screen. That's not a fair comparison. Please someone upload a decent screenshot of an experienced Windows XP user with some extras on it. 195.64.95.116 11:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the image of the Linux desktop to one that's a bit more standard. I'm still not entirely happy with it, but it's a bit better. --h2g2bob 12:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

hacker vs. cracker

"Microsoft suggests that Linux's openness is its weakness, as bad or sloppy code can be added to projects, and that it is easier for hackers to craft exploits when the source code can be seen."

See Hacker_definition_controversy (unfortunately, the article does not seem to include any guidelines for the use of "hacker" in Wikipedia).

I suggest either using cracker or putting quotation marks around the word, if Microsoft has used it in this context.

X127 13:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Need for Comparing Licensing.

I'm going to add a section on licensing. Anyone who has had to install Windows on sites or manage some Linux boxes would say this is what you spend a lot of time on. It's a significant difference. Ttiotsw 10:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually they have commonality; both Linux distros and Windows are copyrighted. They both have an "EULA", with Linux distros this is usually a click-through asking you to agree to the terms of the GNU GPL v2 and LGPL and maybe any additional licensing for 3rd party apps (which are not GPL/LGPL). With Windows it is the usual commercial contract which you expect with proprietary Software. Practically speaking both are equally complex legal agreements. The difference thus lies in the Terms and Conditions of the licences which can be delegated to another article. The violation of GPL/LGPL is difficult, if not impossible for end-users who do not create new binaries, whereas the violation of the Microsoft EULA is easy to effect (though harder in practice now with licensing keys and anti-piracy mechanisms). Ttiotsw 07:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. The point is how much work you have to put into the informatic system at, say, your company, so that no license infringement happens. With GPL software, very little. With MS EULAs, I'd expect a lot. However, this is more "proprietary vs. free", than "Windows vs. Linux". Anyway, Windows is proprietary, and GNU/Linux is free, so it should be mentioned. — Isilanes 13:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I can say that neither Damn Small Linux nor Ubuntu has an EULA in the install. The place where you find licensing is in the source of each app and in the kernel source. That's probably because you only need to worry about the GPL if you're editing the source. It doesn't restrict handing a copy of the install disc to a friend. The EULA in Windows does restrict this, though, so it is of concern to regular users. Macoafi 07:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
So... when are we getting that section about licensing? This is something I myself want to know more about. Hendrixski 19:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Gentoo, Debian & Ubuntu distros don't have EULAs. I believe it is also the case with other distros. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.134.236 (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Closed Source or "shared source"?

It seems there's a very small edit war going on about whether to list Windows as closed source or as "shared source". Here's why I think "shared source" is the wrong term:

  • Shared source refers exclusively to a series of Microsoft Licenses, so it says that says that windows is the most prominent among Microsoft operating systems... not very helpful.
  • Closed source refers generally to a market-wide set of licenses, so it says that Windows is the most prominent among a bunch of Operating Systems (for example including OS X)
  • When you buy Windows in the store you are not buying it with a shared source license, you buy it with a closed source license
  • Shared source is not the default licensing scheme for Windows

However, I do think it is important that we mention shared source elsewhere in the article, because it is important for readers of this article to know that they do have an option of purchasing a different license for Windows. So, do we agree that we call Linux open source and Windows closed source? Hendrixski 17:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, only I think shared source only applies to parts of the Windows OS anyway, and not the whole thing. At least that's what shared source seems to suggest. Shared source needs to be mentioned, but in general the term "closed source" is appropriate, as that's the only option most customers get. I suggest something like "Windows is closed source, although some code is made available to its partners through Microsoft's shared source program". --h2g2bob 19:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I tried to clear up some of the confusion with the shared source thing... Let me know what you think of how it's currently phrased. BTW, shared source is important, it's very helpful for many businesses to know such an option exists. We should assess where else in the document we may put references to Shared Source.Hendrixski 14:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The third paragraph has improved significantly, but the first paragraph seems to have a lot of more useless info. I'll hold off and see where the article goes. However, from the points raised above, I now support the term "closed source". {Slash-|-Talk} 05:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've changed a few small things and deleted some paragraphs which I feel are superfluous, not easily comprehensible, or conjecture. I think we could remove the not NPOV tag from the section Usability now. Agree? --Theosch 16:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it isn't biased either way, but the section makes both operating systems seem excellent. If someone removed the promotional garbage from either one (Windows, Linux), then the whole section would be biased all over again. {Slash-|-Talk} 06:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Cleaned / removed a link to a linux worm this was actually a phpBB worm that will also affect Windows PHP servers http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4117711.stm 81.101.118.64 04:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

desktop facts - cli confusion

on the linux part options are for instance gnome terminal according to this article. Shouldn't it be more something like bash, dash or maybe even a link to unix shell?NESFreak 16:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

good point. Maybe you can change the current title to something about "programs for cli's" and create another one that refers to cli shells? Hendrixski 22:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Compare Microsoft Windows with one distribution per page.

I generally think it's a very very bad idea to compare one operating system (or a few very similar operating systems) with a huge mass of very different operating system, just because that huge mass of operating systems share one thing in common. One of the reasons I think this is a bad idea is because the picture it paints will often be that the one operating system (Windows) will be very uniform and neat and reliable compare to the huge mass, while the huge mass may in fact be quite different. It is also more or less impossible to make good hardware support comparissons in such an article -- for example there is nothing about which processors the operating systems support or what kind of hardware it can run on. I suggest we split this into at least three group of pages or subsections: Windows and Linux on embedded systems (PDA, phones and other such things), Windows and Linux before 2000 (0x, SE and ME) and finally Windows and Linux after 2000 (2000, XP and later -- possibly also Vista, if that's not a fourth page). A possible Windows NT < 5 and Linux comparisson would be a new idea too. I think this article is completly on the wrong track when it tries to describe two families of operating system in one article, since the comparissons a person wants to read heavily depends on why he needs it. If I want to setup a webserver for example, I could care less about window managers and desktop environments, but would be very interested in performance, stability, requirements and options. On the other hand, if I where to just build a gaming box I would want to know about price, game support and driver support mainly. Linux distributions are extremely varied -- some of them are tailored for one specific task or type of user or environment (Familiar), while others are general purpose operating systems (Fedora, Debian). Most of these run on a lot of different hardware platforms, including the ARM line of processors, MIPS, x86, Power PC, Sparc and a host of others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrederikHertzum (talk • contribs) 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

1) We value your input and would like to discuss it further with you, so PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS so that we may reach you.
2) Please keep posts short and to the point, more people will read them that way
3) GOOD IDEA. I support splitting this article. I like the embedded Linux vs embedded Windows split. Perhaps the other splits should be Desktop, and Server? Hendrixski 21:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm Being Bold (tm) here and splitting off a "Comparison of Windows and Ubuntu Linux" here. Windows can be thought of as a single distribution, and as such probably might be best served being compared against a different distribution. -- toresbe 23:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
IMPORTANT: Comparison of Windows and Ubuntu linux now exists. I just created this article. It is more-or-less a draft... What do you think? -- Trintith, the 13-year-old c++ programmer; June 6 2007
I'm afraid I can't really agree with this, because I can't really see that it could go very far in any useful direction that doesn't just equate to being this article (the general Linux vs Windows article) with s/Linux/Ubuntu Linux/ and non-Ubuntu-specific parts removed. Ubuntu may be the most popular, but it's not as if there's some fundamental way in which it's different from all other distros -- and those way it is different could be easily integrated into this article. I think it would be better to concentrate our efforts on this article and bring it up to a better standard, than split of seperate articles for whatever particular Linux distro happens to be popular at the moment. That said, I'm willing to be proved wrong, so if you think you can make it work, go for it! -- simxp (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes I agree with you in the sence that it would be nice to concentrate our efforts on this article and bring it up to a better standard, however I do not like the idea of comparing Windows in general to Linux in general because:
1) This article does not compare general-use Linux with Windows very well. The main point of a split would be to avoid this. Comparing Windows and Linux(including Ubuntu and LFS and everything in between) is kind of like comparing Carrots and Fruit, if you understand my analogy. (:
2) There is many major differences between various distros. My major concern, therefore, is comments like "Varies greatly between distributions..." and "...installation time vaires between 5 seconds and 100 hours..." and "some distros are increadibly user-friendly while others need to be compiled from source" and factually-true-yet-somewhat-misleading-to-the-average-computer-user-wanting-to-know-what-the-status-of-linux-for-general-use-is-comments.
3) It dosn't need to be "Ubuntu" in particular, but Ubuntu happens to be the most popular / best general-use desktop. This article does not, in my opinion, do a very good job making Linux's general-use / home-use very clear. It is not the style's fault, but simply the general idea of the article...
If the article is a bad idea, it should be deleted soon. I havn't put to much effort into it YET. --Trintith, the 13-year-old c++ programmer