Why?

[Mal007colm]

If Windows main problem is stability, and Linux systems are stable. Why hasn't Microsoft adopted Linux standards. After all Linux (or is it Unix) is open source. I know after experiencing numerous blue screen problems in 98, a disastorous install and experience with WinMe, that since the clean install of Win2k I have not experienced the problems that I had before with Microsoft products. The difference only being that some of my devices will not work with WIn2k. Is Win2k what I can expect from a Linux install or in fact Linux even more stable then Win2k? I am thinking of installing Win2k Pro and Redhat 7 dual boot on a system to manage a home network. Should I just leave it to Win2k to manage the whole thing or go for the dual boot. I guess basically what I am asking, is Win2k a legitimate OS compared to Linux if I am looking for stability and an OS to manage my home network?

 

[Priit]

First of all, seems like Microsoft doesn't want to support any sandards besides his own (it's easier to make standards than support any, I guess). Windows and *nix are very differently built OS-es. Windows (at least 95/98/ME etc.) is meant for single-user, so there ain't mutch stability and almost no security in it, networking part is also very primitive. *nix (linux) is built to be secure and stable up from roots, cause it's impossible to make multi-user environment and OS for networking without it. I don't know mutch about W2k, but WinNT was somewhat better than W9x, it has some basic security functions and it's also little more crash-proof. IMHO(!) neither W2k nor NT are as stable as linux cause they need to be backward-compatible with older Windozes. For users, who are used to configure system just by few mouse clicks and some restarts, might Linux be real horror, but sooner or later U gonna love control U got over your system. If U don't mind doing some RTFM, linux (or some unix) is the best network-management OS U can get.

Priit, left Windoze only for gaming 3 years ago
------------------------------------------------
sorry for crappy english

 

[Mal007colm]

Thanks, I guess in there not being the ability to configure your computer with a few clicks of a mouse that Linux requires a bit of a learning curve. But if stability and control are best represented by Linux I think I will take the plunge. Anyone else have any thoughts?

 

[paulip88]

If you are willing to invest the time to learn how to setup and configure Linux, it would be a good experience. However, if all you are doing is running a small network at home, you shouldn't really have any concerns with Win2K.

Also, the choice of what kinds of services you would like to run on your server would also affect your choice.

 

[Hawk]

They are too lazy to rewrite their code...heck, even Win9x is based on DOS code, which is why it's so much more unstable than NT. They would never rewrite their code and incorporate Linux's code, especially because they are supposed to be the big OS company. Can't lose face and use the competition's stuff.

 

[paulip88]

Hawk,

Not that I like Microsoft or anything, but do you know how much work it would take to rewrite the Windows source code? Also, by abandoning DOS, MS would create no backward compatibility and risk losing substantial sales to business customers.

This is the reason why they are trying to slowly migrate all Windows OSes to the NT kernel. They just need to add more features that were previously available only in W9x. They have already done a good deal of that in Win2K.

 

[themadmonk]

A world without Windows, would be a horrible one. I am no avid fan of Microsoft, however I must say they make a remarkable product (credit where credit is due). I have used linux for about a week then totally erased it. The hardware I sacrficed just to run linux was unbearable. All my USB devices: Scanner, ZIP, Sidewinder Freestyle Pro, Optical Mouse, DSL Modem, not to mention my overwhelming game collection. Linux maybe more stable than Windows, but well over 5 years of hardware support, Windows is still a much better product. Who knows, if Linux was actually coded to offer the support for hardware and software that windows does, it might just become that unstable.

 

[themadmonk]

......

 

[Priit]

Themadmonk: AFAIK, linux have much better hardware support out-of-the-box than any Windows. You don't have to mess with installing bunch of drivers to get most of the system work. Too bad it's USB support is so bad, thought. I also agree, that Windows is way better solution for gaming, but that might change in future ( at least I hope so ) With USB hardware, linux isn't really the way to go, but I have some hardware, witch isn't supported (and probably never be) under Winblows. Working as a Tech in company, where almost everything runs on M$-ts softwar, makes you really think twice before praising anything that has come from Bill Gates...

 

[themadmonk]

The truth of the matter is 80% of the world uses Windows not only because they have to, but also the fact that it is a good product, that most coming from the days of DOS and Windows 3.1 already have a good idea how to use it. Would you invest your time learning a new operating system only because you feel the company that makes the most accepted is a bloat? I personally would not even think of how much resources employers would have wasted if they were to re-train employees on how to use a new operating system when most already have knowlege of one. Regardless of how stable linux is, or praise worthy it is, it is just not supported as heavily as Windows, speaking of hardware support, Linux does not support my MS optical mouse, nor any drivers made for my internal netwrok adapters. My sound card still does not have full support, my video card (Geforce 2 GTS) is yet to impress me on a Linux based system, and most importantly, my programs, I have over 30 DOS baed programs I still use that I cannot give up because the alternative does not support them, I am not alone.

 

[Dulanic]

Linux DOES support your optical mouse. I have a Intellimouse Explorer. It works fine if I toss on the PS/2 adapater. And if you play with the mouse files you can actually get it to work in USB also.

 

[themadmonk]

Dulanic: I wouldn't want to sit down and play with files to make things work. But as I said before and say again, Linux maybe a suitable alternative to people who just hate windows, but how much of the world actually do? They original question was why doesn't MS make their own linux if it so much better than Windows. Why would they want to do that when the world is already familiar with Windows, who would sit down and re-train people to use a new operating system?

 

[StanTheMan]

linux sucks

 

[Priit]

Oh it's so easy to say "linux sux". Specially, when you have no idea how it works To be honest, both linux and windows are good OS-es in some aspects. If you want to buy computer and you can't get it without a copy of Windows, I wouldn't call it "fair competition" or "choice of customer". I don't think that moving form Windows to Linux would be that hard for employers, cause GUI of Linux (KDE or Gnome) looks pretty much same compared with Windows. Only problems may have other software. I hope that Microsoft never toutches linux, otherwise there might be no freeware left at all. About "messing with files to get things work" under linux: I find it to be much more amusig than playing Quake or Unreal Anyway, people are happily agree to messing with windows drivers, restarting computer several times and re-installing windows when something goes wrong to get things work, but no way they agree to read some lines of text from README-file or FAQ ? I find it to be quite funny...

------------------------------------
"If Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck, it would be a vacuum cleaner"

Please, no flame !

 

[lsd]

How is linux more stable than win2k?.....
In the 11 months i`ve used win2k (I`m still using RC2) I've yet to see a single crash. I reboot maybe 2 or 3 times a month because i go alittle to far in overclocking my celeron II.
All of my hardware work.. 4 pci devices, 2 isa, and my agp vid card. I run storm linux on my other comp but i barely use it beacuse I don`t have the time to learn linux.
I`ll stick to win2k in my main computer thank you.

 

[themadmonk]

That's so true LSD, why spend time learning something new when the old works and everbody knows it. I still believe that if Linux had the support and features that Windows possesses, it would probably be as unstable. Remember, the more things added, the more to go wrong.

 

[Priit]

Windows has more features than linux? You got to be kidding There's hell of a lot more features under linux than any windows, I don't even want to start counting them...

 

[Mal007colm]

Some very valid points all around, however I think the original question at least for me was would it be wiser for me to use Linux to control my home network or Win2k? I know for a fact that I will run Windows on my main computer. Is it possible and would it be worth it to have a Linux box control my home network (the network being 2 windows desktops, printer and Dsl connection). For one I would like to learn Linux for the same reason that I would love to get my hands on a Mac, curiosity. Also, I have been told that Linux is extremely stable, even more so then Win2k. Would Redhat 7 or Mandrake 7.2 control my network better then Win2k I guess is the ?.

 

[paulip88]

Alright, back to the original question at hand.

Generally, either would work fine. For someone unfamiliar with Linuz, the Linux. box would naturally take more time to configure. Windows would also be a learning experience, although most of the setup would be dead obvious.

So, in conclusion, if you really want to learn something, try out Linux. If you want to set up a domain for your network that would control permissions for all your windows machines, go with WinNT/2K (last time I checked Linux did not support NT domains, but correct me if I'm wrong).

Aside from domains, functionality should be almost identical.

 

[Priit]

Hmm, AFAIK linux supports NT domains but there might be problems with Win2k&Linux (I heard that M$ tried to make in incompatible with samba)

Priit.