What can Linux do that Windows cannot?

[tm37]

<< As far as viruses and Linux you have to remember that most people who write viruses want them to infect as many machines as possible. So why waste time writing a Linux virus to infect a handful of machines when you can spend the same amount of time and infect millions? >>



ding ding ding WE have a winner!

As far as stability XP has been rock solid, and my wife 98 also has. I never understood what the hell people were doing to get 3 or 4 BSOD per day.

Lets face it for the home User Windows Is easier. MUCH Easier. (point in case after two day of reading I still can't get my Netgear Fa331 Network card to work)

Linux may be a better OS for servers but there needs to be a bussiness model. It won't last forever if it can't make money. People won't work on it if there is no profit!

 

[Nemesis77]

<<

<< As far as viruses and Linux you have to remember that most people who write viruses want them to infect as many machines as possible. So why waste time writing a Linux virus to infect a handful of machines when you can spend the same amount of time and infect millions? >>



ding ding ding WE have a winner! >>



Well, not exactly. Aoache is ALOT more popular than IIS is, yet IIS exploits and worms are alot more common that Apache-exploits and worms.

And in the desktop... It's just more difficult to make a virus for Linux than for Windows. Linux is inherintly more secure, viruses would have more difficulties spreading that they do on Windows.



<< Linux may be a better OS for servers but there needs to be a bussiness model. It won't last forever if it can't make money. People won't work on it if there is no profit! >>



Red Hat makes profit from Linux. So does IBM. Other distros are on their way to profitability. Just because the business-model is different, doesn't mean that there isn't one!

There are already ALOT of people working on and with Linux. Many of them do it for money, many because they want to. Alot of excellent software is given away for free.

 

[Pastfinder]

Linux works sounds good.
Microsoft works is an oxymoron.

 

[Priit]

<< As far as viruses and Linux you have to remember that most people who write viruses want them to infect as many machines as possible. So why waste time writing a Linux virus to infect a handful of machines when you can spend the same amount of time and infect millions? >>



It's not only that. It's much harder to write virus for linux/unix that would take the system down cause programs running in user priviledges just has no premission to do that.

 

[Geekbabe]

"What can Linux do that Windows cannot?"


Really confuse the hell out of and piss off my clients ?


ah wait, after thinking over my client list let me amend that statement to really further confuse my clients and piss ME off with increased SOS support calls !!

 

[Geekbabe]

<<

<< not vulnerable to Microsoft accessible backdoor. >>



Jerboy,

You just had to work the term "backdoor" in to this thread, didn't you?

Russ, NCNE >>




geez, can I be allowed to have even ONE cup of coffee a day that I don't end up choking on...lol, Russ you are sooo bad

 

[Elledan]

Simple, Linux can:

- be used set up a beowulf cluster for exactly $0, or any other type of cluster, for that matter.
- allow people to remotely login via telnet and offer a usable CLI.
- offer more than just one desktop.
- run without using a GUI.
- be customized to its core.
- be customized to fit on a PDA.
- be customized to work on any type of server.
- be ported without any major problems to any architecture.
- allow someone to save a system after a configuration error by editing some config files using a rescuedisk and Vi.
- etc.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< - allow people to remotely login via telnet and offer a usable CLI. >>



Replace Telnet with SSH, and you are all set

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< - allow people to remotely login via telnet and offer a usable CLI. >>



Replace Telnet with SSH, and you are all set >>

SSH is merely a secure version of Telnet =)

I usually use Telnet to log in to my servers. I know that I could use SSH, but I just don't need the added security since it's only a LAN.

 

[Nemesis77]

<<

<<

<< - allow people to remotely login via telnet and offer a usable CLI. >>



Replace Telnet with SSH, and you are all set >>

SSH is merely a secure version of Telnet =)

I usually use Telnet to log in to my servers. I know that I could use SSH, but I just don't need the added security since it's only a LAN. >>



It's good to teach yourself to use SSH. After all, it's use isn't any different from Telnet. I use SSH only, even on my private LAN.

 

[Elledan]

<<

<<

<<

<< - allow people to remotely login via telnet and offer a usable CLI. >>



Replace Telnet with SSH, and you are all set >>

SSH is merely a secure version of Telnet =)

I usually use Telnet to log in to my servers. I know that I could use SSH, but I just don't need the added security since it's only a LAN. >>



It's good to teach yourself to use SSH. After all, it's use isn't any different from Telnet. I use SSH only, even on my private LAN. >>

Well, I do have the ability to use SSH right away (I use Putty on Windows, for example), so if I need it, I'll use it.

 

[Nemesis77]

<<

<< It's good to teach yourself to use SSH. After all, it's use isn't any different from Telnet. I use SSH only, even on my private LAN. >>

Well, I do have the ability to use SSH right away (I use Putty on Windows, for example), so if I need it, I'll use it. >>



'atta boy

 

[Descartes]

<< be used set up a beowulf cluster for exactly $0, or any other type of cluster, for that matter. >>



True.



<< allow people to remotely login via telnet and offer a usable CLI >>



Win2k offers this. I still don't get what you mean by "usable CLI." As I've said in the past, I spend a great portion of my time using CLI applications on my windows boxen.



<< offer more than just one desktop >>



It's quite simple to write something to do this, or you can d/l one of the hundreds of programs that do the same thing.



<< run without using a GUI. >>



That's just a different virtue of the OS.



<< be customized to its core. >>



Indeed. This is the main reason I enjoy working on *nix.



<< be customized to fit on a PDA. >>



Not true. It can be customized, just not by you. "Pocket PC" programming is identical to normal win32 programming for the desktop in many aspects. I don't know exactly what MS did to "customize" the kernel, but it is effectively the same core.



<< be customized to work on any type of server. >>



Server hardware, or architectures? Are you talking CISC vs. RISC, IA-32 vs. IA-64, or what? "Customizing" a kernel to work on each of these respective platforms is time consuming, and obviously MS, as a company, will not arbitrarily release their product for platforms that aren't part of their target market. But yes, you are correct, you could literally customize the linux kernel to function on any architecture (although a fun task it wouldn't be in most cases methinks).



<< be ported without any major problems to any architecture. >>



I guess I responded to this, in part, above. Are we talking strictly linux? I've had a tough time indeed porting some stuff from linux to SCO, for instance.



<< allow someone to save a system after a configuration error by editing some config files using a rescuedisk and Vi. >>



There are many CLI registry editors available (including one provided in every install of windows). You can also merge .reg files from the CLI to "rollback" any changes, etc. Not always as convenient as editing a simple *.conf file, but not everyone knows vi either.



<< etc. >>



I agree!

Just ignore me, you know I can't help but respond to these types of threads.

 

[hans007]

<<

<< What can Linux do that Windows cannot? >>



Give the user a superiority complex coupled with the uncontrollable urge to constantly and repeatedly proclaim the wonders of the OS.

Russ, NCNE >>



he's got it right there. its the same with people who think PERL is some sort of religion as a programming language. they think they are using this obscure thing and they are cool. if everyone used linux , linux would "suck" and these people who value their lives based on how "l337" they are woul dhave to go to solaris or freebsd or something just to stay cool

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< allow people to remotely login via telnet and offer a usable CLI >>



Win2k offers this. I still don't get what you mean by "usable CLI." As I've said in the past, I spend a great portion of my time using CLI applications on my windows boxen. >>


Linux is in fact a CLI-based OS. Windows is not. With Linux you can do everything using the CLI. On top of that, Linux offers superior scripting capabilities.



<<

<< offer more than just one desktop >>



It's quite simple to write something to do this, or you can d/l one of the hundreds of programs that do the same thing. >>

I know what you mean (I'm currently running GeoShell), but it's not the same thing.
The GUI of Windows is simply too much integrated into the system.



<<

<< run without using a GUI. >>



That's just a different virtue of the OS. >>

It's something Windows can not do because Windows is a GUI-based OS.



<<

<< be customized to its core. >>



Indeed. This is the main reason I enjoy working on *nix.



<< be customized to fit on a PDA. >>



Not true. It can be customized, just not by you. "Pocket PC" programming is identical to normal win32 programming for the desktop in many aspects. I don't know exactly what MS did to "customize" the kernel, but it is effectively the same core. >>


Nope, there are quite some people here who can tell you why Windows CE etc. are not Windows. Linux remains Linux, because its kernel can truly be stripped until very little remains.



<<

<< be customized to work on any type of server. >>



Server hardware, or architectures? Are you talking CISC vs. RISC, IA-32 vs. IA-64, or what? "Customizing" a kernel to work on each of these respective platforms is time consuming, and obviously MS, as a company, will not arbitrarily release their product for platforms that aren't part of their target market. But yes, you are correct, you could literally customize the linux kernel to function on any architecture (although a fun task it wouldn't be in most cases methinks).



<< be ported without any major problems to any architecture. >>



I guess I responded to this, in part, above. Are we talking strictly linux? I've had a tough time indeed porting some stuff from linux to SCO, for instance.



<< allow someone to save a system after a configuration error by editing some config files using a rescuedisk and Vi. >>



There are many CLI registry editors available (including one provided in every install of windows). You can also merge .reg files from the CLI to "rollback" any changes, etc. Not always as convenient as editing a simple *.conf file, but not everyone knows vi either. >>

The registry remains the nightmare of many system administrators, though. Editing a couple of config files is much easier, since it doesn't require any extra tools, just a texteditor.

BTW, I've never seen a CLI-based regedit.



<<

<< etc. >>



I agree!

Just ignore me, you know I can't help but respond to these types of threads. >>

Okay, I'll ignore you