Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawliet  So we've got people saying Linux is good because it makes you work hard... and then we've got people saying Windows is bad because you have to put effort into getting it the way you want. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. As I said somewhere earlier in the thread, it's funny how when there's a problem with Linux, it's your fault; when there's a problem with Windows, it's Windows' fault. Typical fanboy logic, I'm afraid.
And what is with this Nazi-like promotion of awareness in IT? Everyone's expected to learn C so they can patch their own software? Ridiculous.
I am an example of someone who chose Windows. When I first tried out Linux, all I saw was one confirmation after another that most things spoken about Linux are fanboy propaganda.
Windows... quick install, 10 minute download of a few patches and it's ready. You can go the extra inch if you want and check out your startups and services and turn off those you know you won't need so that you can save a bit on performance. That's it. You don't have to spend 40 years making the best of an OS that WILL eventually die or be hacked like *nixboys will have you believe. The people who come out with that stuff and then say "u just dnt kno linux" I'd bet don't know Windows.
Tip guys: turning file sharing on and having a "password" password on your admin account != good idea.
I suppose it's a bit different for me because I know how to look after my own OS. Back when I was using Windows 98 SE, I had a customized kernel and patched a few vulnerabilities that to this day Microsoft never patched (so I presume went undiscovered).
One thing I can say, though... Microsoft programming is truly awful - and that's back when Windows was ASM or a C-ASM hybrid. Now 99% of it is managed code... it does lose points with me as far as performance is concerned. A friend of mine has also told me there's a hidden process in Vista that you can use to apply for ring 0 privs which is potentially worrying. |
so it is a "fanboy-propaganda" when I say I had no problems with Linux, it is far not slower than the XP, I had no crashes, the install with hunder of MB-s of net-update is quicker than the install of XP with SP2-3, 3rd party fw, antivirus, antispy, OOo, and so.
About speed:
1. On my mother-in-law's pc I upgrade the IE7 to IE8. Only this updgrade was about 20 minutes. The install of Ubuntu was about 30 minutes on this pc. The WHOLE OS not only one app.
2. My boss tried to open his web email account (his pc is 2 GHz C2D, 1GB RAM, XPSP3). the site is full of JavaScript. The login time (after name and pwd typed in) was 15 secs. I checked it: installed VirtualBox and in it run an Ubuntu LiveCD. On this system in Firefox it was 6 secs to make the same process. At home I also checked on Ubuntu (after permitting JS in FF): it was 1,5 secs. So what about speed?
I think it is ridiculous when you say Gentoo installing is slow because of the compiling. Install Window$ is slow 'cos I had to wait 8 years for Window$ 7, the install cd/dvd will be made somewhere, sent to the shop near me, I have to go to buy it, and finally I have to install it. It is slow. You see, amyone can tell silly things.
but I rather think you are joking and I LOL