What can Linux do that Windows cannot?!?!?

[stash]

I heard of Media Extenders for XBOX. Never saw one before. But I came across some news recently talking about beta version of Media Extenders.

Yes, you could turn your Xbox1 into an Extender for MCE2005 (and I think 2004). Xbox360s work with all versions of Media Center.

But there were several third-party extenders that worked with versions of MC before Vista (Linksys had one, HP, etc). And the next generation of third party extenders, that work with Vista, were recently announced. Those are the ones in the article you linked, but I don't know why you would refer to them as beta devices. They aren't; they will be on the market for the holidays.

Let's see how much Microsoft will copy these features (from LinuxMCE).

Pretty much everyone is copying Microsoft at this point. But if MS copies anything from LinuxMCE, I hope it isn't that UI. It makes my eyes bleed.

 

[hasu]

Originally posted by: stash
Pretty much everyone is copying Microsoft at this point. But if MS copies anything from LinuxMCE, I hope it isn't that UI. It makes my eyes bleed.

You are funny! Can I assume that you might have had said the same thing about Windows 3.0/3.1 or even short lived dosshell (which looked like the predecessor of Windows)? To me LinuxMCE GUI at this point is only a proof of concept, just to show off its capabilities. Moreover if you noticed, there is not much GUI to LinuxMCE unlike Windows XP MCE.
Being an open source software, time only can tell how well will it evolve.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: hasu

Originally posted by: stash
Pretty much everyone is copying Microsoft at this point. But if MS copies anything from LinuxMCE, I hope it isn't that UI. It makes my eyes bleed.

You are funny! Can I assume that you might have had said the same thing about Windows 3.0/3.1 or even short lived dosshell (which looked like the predecessor of Windows)? To me LinuxMCE GUI at this point is only a proof of concept, just to show off its capabilities. Moreover if you noticed, there is not much GUI to LinuxMCE unlike Windows XP MCE.
Being an open source software, time only can tell how well will it evolve.

It is true that everybody else is copying Microsoft on the Media Center right now. That is not to say that Myth TV is not heading in the direction of innovation. But at the moment, nobody can match Windows Media Center for overall functionality. Microsoft invented the Media Center in 2002 and is well ahead of everyone else at this time. Myth TV still has some work to be done to it before it matches WMC in ease of use, overall functionality and polish.

 

[hasu]

Originally posted by: soonerproud
It is true that everybody else is copying Microsoft on the Media Center right now. That is not to say that Myth TV is not heading in the direction of innovation. But at the moment, nobody can match Windows Media Center for overall functionality. Microsoft invented the Media Center in 2002 and is well ahead of everyone else at this time. Myth TV still has some work to be done to it before it matches WMC in ease of use, overall functionality and polish.

I am not sure who "invented" or improvised PC as a media player and called it a media center. But if you watch the LinuxMCE (or its demo video) you will understand that it is nothing like Windows XP media center, GUI that is. I agree that Media Portal is more like Windows XP MCE but with lot more neat features. That said, I am not against Windows MCE or its intentions (in fact I have one Windows XP MCE). Microsoft is a mass market software producer and hence they have to bring the public to the next level before Joe Public can appreciate the new features. Just as what they are doing with the command line utilities. The other day my friend in our operations department showed me the "new" direction Microsoft is going with the way in which one administer the server tasks -- with the new command line interface to all their products like Exchange server. (sorry I don't recall the name, I will get the name today).

 

[Modelworks]

I think the best media center out there has to be XBMC for the original xbox.
Its very good and the only thing it lacks is the ability to record.
The interface is excellent and it makes use of all those origninal xbox that people are discarding.

 

[stash]

with the new command line interface to all their products like Exchange server. (sorry I don't recall the name, I will get the name today).

PowerShell.

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: hasu
I can install/re-install my OS any number of times. Upgrade my machines as I wish.. all these without re-activating the OS. Have you seen LinuxMCE? I am installing LinuxMCE in a separate media network at home. Do you have that kind of features in Windows MCE? LinuxMCE is sweet even at 1.0. Windows is trying to follow with their media extenders.

LinuxMCE doesn't seem to be what a Media Center Extender is at all though. It has some interesting idea's and features but it definately isn't a Media Center Extender.

The Primary function of a Windows MCE is to "extend" your media center's capabilities to TV's around the house without needing to attach a PC to your TV. One of the benefits of a windows MCE is that you can have your Media Center PC (Vista, MCE2004, 2005) in your office where it belongs. It will contain all your media as well as TV tuners. You then connect to it via ethernet or wifi with an extender. Either in the form of the Xbox 360 or one of the new extender devices. The extender will then act as if you are using your Media Center PC's 10' interface locally. This includes watching recorded and Live TV. You can actually use several Extenders at the same time. You can have an extender attached to the livingroom TV and whatch live TV while having a second elsewhere in the house doing the same. The limitations are based on how many TV tuners are in the media center PC and the bandwidth of your network. My 11a network handles two Extenders extremely well. Of course, if you wanted to, you could stream pre-recorded content to even more extenders.

The idea of the MCE is to remove the PC from the living room and allow it's functionality to be distributed throughout the house. The only real problem with them today is that the 360 is kinda loud and doesn't make an ideal extender as a result. But, the new extenders will not have the same problem.

To my knowledge, the only product that does what Windows Media Center w/ an extender does is Windows Media Center w/ and extender. Some products are close, but lack the ability to do things like stream Live TV.

Now, putting the media center stuff aside, I'm curious about the original question. What can Linux do that Windows cannot?

 

[Nothinman]

Now, putting the media center stuff aside, I'm curious about the original question. What can Linux do that Windows cannot?

My original list wasn't extensive enough?

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Now, putting the media center stuff aside, I'm curious about the original question. What can Linux do that Windows cannot?

My original list wasn't extensive enough?

It's a good start. Mostly I'm curious what it can do for me specifically that I can't do now. Lots of the stuff you have listed are more helpful in a corporate environment and a few have Windows alternatives. Every 6 months or so I load one Linux distribution or another to see what has changed and how it's coming along. I would like to see Linux on the desktop become a viable alternative to Windows. I think it's still a bit in the future, but it certainly has gotten better.

I find it a more interesting debate than the usual "but you can get an open source so and so that's as good as blah blah" debates so common on the net.

I've been following the thread a bit and have specifically avoided the what linux can't do type of response because that's not what original question was. Thankfully this hasn't become a windows bashing thread either.

So, for me as a Windows Vista Ultimate user, what benefits would Linux give me that I don't have or use now? I'm not so much interested in the "ease of use" differences as much as the fundimental benefits that I may realize. I have no problem with searching for, downloading and installing windows apps vs having a linux style central software updater. Honestly, I don't think many users really care one way or the other in that area.

In the end, I think the biggest problem that linux has to face is the fact that no OS really does one thing better than the next OS or provides some feature that make other operating systems pale in comparison. Apple marketting aside, OSX provides no real advantage over Windows or Linux. Better software selections, mostly due to better business decisions early on, for Windows aside, I don't think Windows is any better than OSX or Linux.

 

[BladeVenom]

Linux can run without activation. This is good for a laugh. http://zparks.lv/lat/literatura/e_risinajumi/?doc=1152

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: Griffinhart
I have no problem with searching for, downloading and installing windows apps vs having a linux style central software updater. Honestly, I don't think many users really care one way or the other in that area.

Hardly anyone except everyone that uses a package manager. I sure as heck care one way or the other and I think you'll find most *nix users do too.

I don't think anybody's mentioned: install on a soekris or similar device and use as a router/firewall/ids/whatever.

 

[Nothinman]

Mostly I'm curious what it can do for me specifically that I can't do now.

That's pretty much impossible for me to answer since I don't know even know what you do now. And IMO some of them are pretty important like the lack of vendor lock-in, use all of your hardware without any restrictions, update all of your software from one source, etc and none of those will ever change until MS' business model changes.

and a few have Windows alternatives.

I'd be interested to know which ones because AFAIK nothing I listed is possible to do legally with Windows.

I have no problem with searching for, downloading and installing windows apps vs having a linux style central software updater. Honestly, I don't think many users really care one way or the other in that area.

They and you should care about that. I get notified when there's an update to any package on my system so instead of having to keep up on developments for a dozen projects manually I let the Debian package maintainers do that for me, that's pretty much impossible with Windows and if you actually care about security it's a huge waste of your time.

 

[Cogman]

What can you do on linux that you can't on windows? Lots. Inherently linux is more secure because by default all users aren't administrators to the system. That means that John Doe could install a virus that infects all his personal files and all mary would have to do to get her stuff is restart the computer.

Configurability is huge on linux. You could build a basic bash kernel apache combo and fit it all on a single floppy, or you can use the lastest greatest version of X.org + KDE or Gnome to get a fairly good looking system (at a still fairly low ram cost).

You can build nearly any program available to linux to match your system optimizations, meaning you get a fair speed boost from self compiled apps.

You can access a VAST variety of File systems with relative ease, from reiser to ext4 to NTFS, to fat32 its all good. (it is a pain to just get windows to open an ext3 filesystem.)

You can install linux on non-i386 machines.

remote connections in linux are far better then their windows counter parts, because of the way x was designed, you are able to efficiently transport window information.

You can get the newest version of linux for free

you can change your computer into very advanced fileservers, media servers, ect fairly easily due to the nature of linux.

You can do everything windows can do (windows cannot do everything linux can do) with a bit of tweaking you can even make linux look and feel like windows.

You can run a fair amount of windows apps (windows does not run a lot of linux apps) in a fast and native way.

You can operate a complete version of linux from a cd

You can choose between hundreds of free modern versions of linux to find the one you like the best.

And I'm sure I've missed quite a few more things, but that is what comes to the top of my head.

 

[Nothinman]

What can you do on linux that you can't on windows? Lots. Inherently linux is more secure because by default all users aren't administrators to the system. That means that John Doe could install a virus that infects all his personal files and all mary would have to do to get her stuff is restart the computer.

That's possible on Windows too, it's not the default and it's a PITA but it's possible.

Configurability is huge on linux. You could build a basic bash kernel apache combo and fit it all on a single floppy,

That's pretty iffy these days, the kernel on my box here is 1.3M and that's with pretty much everything as a module.

You can build nearly any program available to linux to match your system optimizations, meaning you get a fair speed boost from self compiled apps.

The speed boost you get from compiling anything yourself is virtually 0 and not worth the hassle and there are lots of open source apps for Windows these days.

remote connections in linux are far better then their windows counter parts, because of the way x was designed, you are able to efficiently transport window information.

It's more convenient because it's right there and you can run any X app over ssh but RDP and ICA are a lot more effecient than remote X.

You can do everything windows can do (windows cannot do everything linux can do) with a bit of tweaking you can even make linux look and feel like windows.

I wouldn't go that far, I could probably come up with a few things Windows can do that Linux can't.

You can run a fair amount of windows apps (windows does not run a lot of linux apps) in a fast and native way.

Windows runs Windows apps so that's OT as well. =) And Windows does run a lot of Linux apps, just look at cygwin.

You can operate a complete version of linux from a cd

The word "complete" might be a stickler there but WinPE can run from a CD and is nearly complete and IIRC there were even people installing BartPE to their hard disk.

 

[stash]

That's possible on Windows too, it's not the default and it's a PITA but it's possible.

It's a PITA on XP, but not on Vista. That's what UAC is for; making it simple to run as a standard user. And while the first account on a Vista box is in the admins group by default, it does not have an admin token unless you elevate. So it is a standard user most of the time.

 

[Nothinman]

It's a PITA on XP, but not on Vista. That's what UAC is for; making it simple to run as a standard user. And while the first account on a Vista box is in the admins group by default, it does not have an admin token unless you elevate. So it is a standard user most of the time.

True, I was still thinking in the XP mindset.

 

[shortylickens]

Truth be told, the only feature really exclusive to Linux is the boot off CD or DVD.
And quite a few folks have tried some shady underground stuff with Windows. You do a search for that on your own, I wont help you.
Everything else can be done with both of them. You may have to search for a long time to find equivilant programs, and you will probably pay more by having a Windows system, but there is nothing that absolutely, positively CAN'T be done in windows that is possible in Linux. If you pay close attention to the wording of all the previous posters, Linux is a LOT easier to use for certain tasks, and generally safer, but thats it.

Though many users have found that the simple speed advantage is enough to switch.

If you have a specific need for a computer and you wont be needing it for all the typical home use stuff, you may find that a customized install package of Linux is a good idea.
Not having all the BS of a normal Windows install may be nice if your specific-needs machine needs to run smoothly, without hiccup or crap in the background slowing it down.

 

[Nothinman]

Truth be told, the only feature really exclusive to Linux is the boot off CD or DVD.

Not at all, I listed a few things off the top of my head that are currently technically impossible to do with Windows. And Windows boots and runs from CDs just fine.

but there is nothing that absolutely, positively CAN'T be done in windows that is possible in Linux.

Then explain to me how to do the equivalent of a nfsroot booted Linux system on Windows.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

but there is nothing that absolutely, positively CAN'T be done in windows that is possible in Linux.

Then explain to me how to do the equivalent of a nfsroot booted Linux system on Windows.

I would also like to know how to run my Windows servers with commandline only. thanks.

 

[Nothinman]

I would also like to know how to run my Windows servers with commandline only. thanks.

Do a "Core" install of Windows Server 2008. Well technically the GUI is still there but most of the GUI support programs like IE, explorer, etc are gone and you're stuck in cmd.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I would also like to know how to run my Windows servers with commandline only. thanks.

Do a "Core" install of Windows Server 2008. Well technically the GUI is still there but most of the GUI support programs like IE, explorer, etc are gone and you're stuck in cmd.

1. That's still not quite the same thing, but a step in the right direction.

2. Server 2008 is not released yet.

 

[Nothinman]

1. That's still not quite the same thing, but a step in the right direction.

I agree, but being pedantic it is what you asked for. =)

2. Server 2008 is not released yet.

No, but the first RC is out.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

1. That's still not quite the same thing, but a step in the right direction.

I agree, but being pedantic it is what you asked for. =)

Well, just to clarify, I was asking for it from shortylickens. I only quoted your post because I was adding to what you said