Great Linux Features
Great Linux FeaturesLinux is great/better because it is GPL and it's free. It uses a time tested design (Unix) and tries to implement it as best as possible. Did I mention it's free?
That's for compatibility. Feel free to RollYourOwn linux system with a miniscule number of libraries.
Well, yes, plenty of stability data exists. With 2000/Xp, I think Windows is probably approaching unix-like stability, but it will take a couple of years at least to find out for sure. As for all systems, stability is highly dependent on competent system administration, but even with best-case admin, windows prior to 2000 at least couldn't come close to unix norms (properly administered)
9x sucks. The best marketing blurb MS could write for Xp is that it does everything 95 was supposed to do, but doesn't fall over. Could you see Bill - "XP - like 95 - but stable!"
One problem I have with Unix as a whole is the amount of administration time. You just don't need it to the same extent in Windows. The number of Unix admins is huge. The number of Windows admins is much much smaller. Linux really needs to address this.
But once you get a Linux system running, it stays running until you change something. It's also easy to restore a Linux system to its previous functional state if you make a copy of the config files you changed. Make one change in Windows, and it might make a dozen other changes that you don't notice. When you revert your change, only half of the dozen changes are reverted with it...
And how many FileSystems? can MicrosoftWindows read?
FAT, NTFS, and HPFS (once upon a time), and possibly others of which I'm unaware (Flash File System, maybe?). There's no reason, though, that someone couldn't write a filesystem driver to read other file formats.
Has anyone done so?
Ext2FS and BeFS have experimental read only drivers out.
ext2?!!! How DARE they?!!!
It can mount more than 26 filesystems (including network ones). I'd like to see MicrosoftWindows invent a new letter!
Very deeply buried, WindowsNT4.0 (not the initial version, but I forget which SP it started with) through XP support mounting new file systems as part of the big FS tree. This doesn't seem to be encouraged at this time, but the support is there. XP is a fairly large change, but supposedly some even larger changes are supposed to be coming in the next 5 years. Stuff that makes XP look like just going from 95 to 98.
Why do you need to mount?
It can store swap space in a partition as opposed to a file.
So can most UnixOperatingSystems.
However, mounting a file as swap gets does things that aren't in the best interests of swap. For instance, the file gets journaled. Not that swap performance should ever be a bottleneck, but there's absolutely no reason to use more effort than needed to get to the swap.
Guys, Linux rules like no OS has ruled before. And it is also the latest winner of the "Programmer's Favorite Toy Box" award. But it's not awesome because of anything on this page. Just being a pure, lean Posix implementation does not make you great.
'Agreed.'
The user community has made the GNU versions of the unix tools the default installs for Linux instead of the old, less functionality rich versions from days of yore. Now, dammit, where did I put my swiss army chainsaw again? -- JeffBay
Here, have my copy of cp.
I have a pristine PC which was just delivered. I hook up the cables in the obvious way and put the Suse CD in the CD tray. I turn the computer on. I select "Developer system" and "Install". I go to lunch. I come back, now I have a fully functional system with all the tools I need, on which I can immediately be productive. That's great about Linux. -- StephanHouben
If Linux is really productive why is Windows on most desktops? (BTW IlikeLinuxAndWindows? - am I the only one?)
Because end-users (meaning wimpy powerless users) need a BenevolentDictatorship? to smooth over their experience so that the most-often-used features are in your face, and the hardcore features are either hidden (or, of course, non-existent). Unix-land programmers are totally comfortable with using, say, "man rpm", and letting it dump everything in their laps and let them sort it out.
So Linux will never be for the masses?
Linux is likable because no idiotic arbitrary user-interface limits can get in the way of your power & freedom to do anything you can conceive of doing.
Windows is likable because the <Delete> key does the exact same thing, everywhere on any program. (Recall that users perceive the <Delete> key part of the keyboard, not as part of a driver or the current app.)
We need a central "authority" to fund scientific research in how user interfaces should work, instead of just making it up off the top of our evil genius heads all the time. It's a tragedy that our industry could only get this "authority" at the expense of growing a parasitic and totally non-benevolent dictatorship to exploit it.
But now that the research is established, Linux will EmbraceExtendExtinguish? it all, and will crush McWindows like a bug. MS's marketing pitch has forever been "we can outspend any company on research". Guess what? Linux isn't a company, it does not spend a dime on research, and it can outbreed Windows with more and more engineers willing to risk their health staying up late tweaking the code. MS will continue its devolution into a commodity service that provides consumer & vertical market tools, and wannabe network protocols. It will never invent (or pretend to invent) a new desktop app again. -- PhlIp
See CommonUserAccess.
Moved to WhyLinuxSucks
''We need a central "authority" to fund scientific research in how user interfaces should work, instead of just making it up off the top of our evil genius heads all the time. But it's a tragedy that our industry could only get this "authority" at the expense of growing a parasitic and totally non-benevolent dictatorship to exploit it. ''
That central authority is CommonSense. I believe that people who use the software should write the software. That way, the maximum usability is extracted from the collective minds of the people who use a program every day (or whatever). Unfortunately, MostPeopleAreFlamingIdiots, so the common sense thing goes right out the window. -- BillySparks?
"...people who use the software should write the software." Why do you consider this to be common sense? It is very common for products to be designed/developed/built by people other than the users, especially when such development requires a high level of uncommon expertise. Why should software be different? -- KrisJohnson
Because unlike every other product, software doesn't take enormous amounts of capital to design, develop and build. It only takes time.
The often stated opinion that the mythical 'user' should be user interface designer seems to be based on the assumption that programmers/engineers are biased by using computers too much, and that people who haven't spent so much time reflecting about user interfaces somehow have a clearer vision, unspoiled, child-like. A romantic idea.
The real feature of Linux is not necessarily the tangible features. The reason why Linux is on top is because it was working at the right time, more attractive than the BSDs at the right time, gathered the proper distribution of interested people, etc.
Also, some people like working with GPL projects instead of BSD projects. Especially corporations. Most of the corporate BSD help has been from embedded hardware developers who want to ship a $1500 PC with a fancy logo in front, running a BSD derivitive with their special software, for insane chunks of money. Most of the corporate help for Linux seems to be from people who want to put the code out in a more collective fashion so that they can make their expensive hardware more attractive.
Linus's leadership for the kernel is also a key feature. Linus has been able to maintain a beneviolent dictatorship over the team, with humor and pragmatism that is hard to match. He is a very palatable, non-whacko open source leader. Although there are now reasonable differences between the BSD kernel forks, at first, many of them were on personal and not technical reasons. And RMS has a bad reputation as being a whacko.
The problem with Linux is that it is, overall, limited by the mindset of reproducing a very optimally-written version of Unix. The only reason why Linux is such a breath of fresh air is that it is better and more logical, in many respects, than Windows.
Beta is better than VHS. (Look at professional news crews - they use Beta, not VHS). VHS just won the marketting war. Popular != 'good'.
The whole definition of good is like quality - it doesn't mean anything without a context. Good for playing games? Good for writing letters? Good for writing software?
Also note that Betacam SP like the news crews use is not the same as the consumer Beta that lost to VHS. It has been enhanced signifigantly compared to Beta.
See LinuxPerceptionProblems for further discussion of some of the not-so-great aspects of Linux. -- MikeSmith
The best part of GNU/Linux is that if you don't like a feature, you replace it. Do you hate the default Ubuntu shell in the latest versions of Ubuntu? Replace it with KDE, or TWM, or whatever you want. If there is no suitable replacement already, then you could learn C or C++ and write one yourself. It might be annoying to code it, or to set up your config files, but it is better than MicrosoftWindows where if you don't like a feature, you're stuck with it so too bad. And if you like the best of both worlds, run GNU/Linux in a VirtualComputer.
Virtual terminals make Linux great.
Category HolyWar
EditText of this page
(last edited January 8, 2013)
or FindPage with title or text search