# What does Linux has that Windows doesn't?



## xXxJiggabobxXx (Nov 22, 2007)

Hi, I'm new here but I'm wondering what features Linux posseses that Windows does not?

A good enough list might just make me turn to the dark side. I've trawled the net but I just can't find a good normal list.


----------



## panchoman (Nov 22, 2007)

It's very moddable, you can do almost everything on it except for dx10 gaming(though it'll be made avaliable via the alky project very soon). linux is all about tailoring it to your needs. one thing i really like is workstations, you can have different workstations and switch between them, makes everything a lot neater and more organized.

this fun little article thingy puts all the oses into perspective: http://www.linuxscrew.com/2007/10/07/fun-linux-unix-windows-os-x-and-dos-airlines/


----------



## xXxJiggabobxXx (Nov 22, 2007)

Hmm thanks but I need a serious list lol.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Nov 22, 2007)

panchoman said:


> It's very moddable, you can do almost everything on it except for dx10 gaming(though it'll be made avaliable via the alky project very soon). linux is all about tailoring it to your needs. one thing i really like is workstations, you can have different workstations and switch between them, makes everything a lot neater and more organized.
> 
> this fun little article thingy puts all the oses into perspective: http://www.linuxscrew.com/2007/10/07/fun-linux-unix-windows-os-x-and-dos-airlines/



I'd like to see something working from alky first. Besides, Windows can have multiple desktops as well via 3rd party software.

It is correct however that it's modable, however this isn't for most users. However it is the main advantage, being open source you can do anything with it. It is nice for embedded systems though can be a bloated piece of junk as well. 

However to actually name something it has that Windows does not, I wouldn't know anything. There is an alternative for basically anything.


----------



## Ripper3 (Nov 22, 2007)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> I'd like to see something working from alky first. Besides, Windows can have multiple desktops as well via 3rd party software.
> 
> It is correct however that it's modable, however this isn't for most users. However it is the main advantage, being open source you can do anything with it. It is nice for embedded systems though can be a bloated piece of junk as well.
> 
> However to actually name something it has that Windows does not, I wouldn't know anything. There is an alternative for basically anything.



It's actually less bloated really.
Look at Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon. It fits onto a single CD, uses completely open source software (when and where possible, there's always a driver or two, but they warn you with the useful Restricted Drivers Manager), has an awesome 3D desktop as standard (and works great, as long as your graphics card is supported properly); a full free office suite, in fact all the software a regular user would need, really; some pretty fun standard games; a brilliant package manager that makes it easy to download and install extra software (from undreds, if not thousands of packages); and workstations as standard.

Look at Vista, it has a nice looking desktop, yes, but why is it weighing in with a full DVD? Where's my office suite as standard? Etc...

Still, users demand Windows, thinking its a huge difference, when really, they coudl easily get used to Linux, it's just a matter of practice, something my dad was lacking (along with a mapping program, since I could only get Google Earth to work, but AutoRoute is his preffered app), but he did enjoy it, just a shame it didn't have everything he needed.
I'm still certain I could find the mapping software he needs though.


----------



## panchoman (Nov 22, 2007)

dont forget that ubuntu can run right off of the cd, whereas vista has compressed files onto the dvd just waiting to be expanded.


----------



## Ripper3 (Nov 22, 2007)

Yarr, but since Vista needs to be paid for, runnign it off the disc might not be beneficial to MS, but either way, it'd be too large to run from RAM and read-only memory, as is the case of the DVD.
Also, Ubuntu does get a little slow, even on this, my main system, while running from CD. I do like the smaller distros that can run fully from RAM though. With 2GB of RAM, Knoppix is almost a possibility for running straight from RAM 
Until then, DSL, Puppy, Feather, and GeeXBoX Linux distros can very very easly run from RAM (and there must be others, but I'm not doing a complete list, heh). DSL needs as littel as 128MB or something, to be run completely in RAM, while GeeXBoX's older versions were only up to 16MB in size, if you decided to install additional codecs, otherwise, you would see disc usage of a maximum of up to 8MB. It made for a nice little media front-end.


----------



## panchoman (Nov 22, 2007)

well of course ubuntu running off of your hdd is gonna run a lot faster then from your cd drive


----------



## Ketxxx (Nov 22, 2007)

In a nutshell: Linux = neat and tidy, Windows = bloatware.


----------



## strick94u (Nov 23, 2007)

It does have invisable snakes so becareful.


----------



## sixor (Nov 23, 2007)

it does an amazing 3d desktop with beryl, the 3d in vista is lame,just like 2 effects and that´s it, while beryl has like 20 effects + 3d cube full of desktops + a lot more of customizations

it has an office suite (openoffice)

a program to edit photos professionaly (gimp)

it runs off the cd, so you can repare/fix your pc without writing files to your hd

it´s free

BTW i use mandriva one 08


----------



## lemonadesoda (Nov 24, 2007)

Linux is great... but requires a lot of skill setting up, and usually, defering to a build made by someone containing a full-working set up. Although such a build is easily modable... you'll be spending months of time to learn how to do that well.

Windows on the other hand is so standardised that nearly anyone can use it right out of the box. Although many people criticise it for "bloat", in fact, the functions and services available, built right in, are enormous. 

So what that it doesnt run off a CD. We all have CHEAP, HUGE, HDDs today.

*The advantages of Linux are therefore:*

1./ License price (if important)

2./ Lower system specs that Windows

3./ "Nerd" cred.

*The advantages of Windows are:*

1./ Everyone can install it and use it

2./ A lot more functionality built in

3./ A typical home user is able to "manage" it

*SUMMARY*


If you have LOTS OF TIME, and NO MONEY, go linux.

If time=money, go Windows.

If you want more sex, go Mac.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Nov 24, 2007)

I think I should just comment on the last bullet point there... more sex is statistically true, but I cant guarantee it would be with girls


----------



## Ripper3 (Nov 24, 2007)

lemonadesoda said:


> So what that it doesnt run off a CD. We all have CHEAP, HUGE, HDDs today.



Running it off disc is always a useful option for repairs, diagnostics, virus-scanning, etc.
Also, sometimes, you might want/need to make a small system, without a hard drive, that boots or runs from disc, which is where running from disc comes in handy.
A good example of this: I'm thinking of making my old iBook into a digital picture frame. Advantages of running from flash memory is that it's fast, and small, and silent.
Advantages of running from CD meanwhile, it's free, 'cept for the price of a CD/DVD, and can take away some of the hassle, although it's harder to get your photos onto it, without re-burning the whole damned thing, heheh.


----------



## Ripper3 (Nov 24, 2007)

lemonadesoda said:


> I think I should just comment on the last bullet point there... more sex is statistically true, but I cant guarantee it would be with girls



No, you can, that's the thing, 'cept for one or two exceptions to the rule, at my Uni, the people that use Macs the most (their own, not the media suite's Macs, that's different, they ahve no choice there) are all girls. Mostly kinda hot too. 
All the guys I've seen rolling with laptops, have anything from UMPCs, to Tablet PCs, to gaming machines (one had a bloody heavy looking Alienware, but he looked happy, playing some Doom 3 in the refectory, heheh)


----------



## AsRock (Nov 24, 2007)

panchoman said:


> dont forget that ubuntu can run right off of the cd, whereas vista has compressed files onto the dvd just waiting to be expanded.



And not just that you can partition a drive without losing data on it too.  Yes from just booting of CD lol.  Memtest on CD boot lol.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 27, 2007)

Ripper3 said:


> It's actually less bloated really.
> Look at Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon. It fits onto a single CD, uses completely open source software (when and where possible, there's always a driver or two, but they warn you with the useful Restricted Drivers Manager), has an awesome 3D desktop as standard (and works great, as long as your graphics card is supported properly); a full free office suite, in fact all the software a regular user would need, really; some pretty fun standard games; a brilliant package manager that makes it easy to download and install extra software (from undreds, if not thousands of packages); and workstations as standard.
> 
> Look at Vista, it has a nice looking desktop, yes, but why is it weighing in with a full DVD? Where's my office suite as standard? Etc...
> ...


Vista also carries all versions on a single DVD - Home Basic thru Ultimate.

But anyway, whilst Linux is generally less bloated than Vista, it can still get just as bloated. Linux is also more work than Windows. It's not a matter of being able to get used to it, just about anybody could learn it, the question is why would most people want to? Especially when you consider Windows is point and click easy. Don't get me wrong, I like Linux, Fedora is my preferred distro, but I find myself using it less and less, because Windows is so much easier.


----------



## DIBL (Dec 4, 2007)

xXxJiggabobxXx said:


> I'm wondering what features Linux possesses that Windows does not?



Linux features YOU owning and operating your computer, however you want.  Windows features Microsoft/WGA strictly limiting what you can do with "your" computer, running THEIR OS.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Dec 4, 2007)

Ripper3 said:


> It's actually less bloated really.



I said it "could be" just as bloated. There are hundreds of distributions, most have different versions as well. There are plenty of distributions that are just as bloated as Windows. Though like I said, it's modable, but not by the average user. Windows can be really tiny as well, look at embedded editions (most small Linux editions are aimed at embedded applications as well)


As to Pancho, Windows can boot from CD as well, it's called PE.


Linux and Windows simply are different OSes and both can do basically anything.


----------



## Grings (Dec 4, 2007)

> What does Linux has that Windows doesn't?



a scarily loyal userbase, who will defend it to the end

quite a contrast to windows users, who love nothing better than ranting about ol' wild bill


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 4, 2007)

a completely open source code i can my distrobution mine if i need too i can adjust it and tweak it for my system completely. 

@Danthebanjoman actually you can though controll what goes into it and its really easy at install you have the option to controll exactly what packages get installed and its really easy to do and easy to find the option its blatently obvious in all gui based installers iv seen.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Dec 4, 2007)

Solaris17 said:


> @Danthebanjoman actually you can though controll what goes into it and its really easy at install you have the option to controll exactly what packages get installed and its really easy to do and easy to find the option its blatently obvious in all gui based installers iv seen.



I support over 450 Linux machines. Most users complain about open office being complex and they keep losing their files because they don't even understand what a directory is. They open files right from the e-mail client (Ximian Evolution) and then wonder where the files went. You obviously think they have any clues about packages? 
Trust me, the more freedom in configuration and customization the less attractive something is to the greater public. Why do you think mr Jobs can sell his machines for high prices?


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 4, 2007)

i guess thats a good point.


----------



## mab1376 (Dec 4, 2007)

Since Wal-Mart is now selling a $200 PC with Ubuntu hopefully it will become more popular alongside Dell and HP offering it as a windows alternative.

Once that happens M$ will have to make their OS completely open and moddable start giving it away.

The only thing that sucks is that people who haven't heard of Linux before shy away from it, since the slightest little error msg makes them think they broke their PC permantly.


----------



## 3991vhtes (Dec 4, 2007)

Grings said:


> a scarily loyal userbase, who will defend it to the end



That's about it. IMO.


----------



## iamollie (Dec 4, 2007)

so in answer to the guys original question, if you have an indepth knowledge then you can tweak your OS but who would want to do that?


----------



## Wile E (Dec 5, 2007)

iamollie said:


> so in answer to the guys original question, if you have an indepth knowledge then you can tweak your OS but who would want to do that?


Windows has that too.

For the end user, there's nothing that Linux has and Windows doesn't. The only thing that Linux may have over Windows is the relative lack of viruses and spyware, but OS X has that, too.


----------



## DIBL (Dec 5, 2007)

A price tag of $0.00.

(Excluding the cost of your time to learn enough about it to be productive!)


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Dec 5, 2007)

Wile E said:


> Windows has that too.
> 
> For the end user, there's nothing that Linux has and Windows doesn't. The only thing that Linux may have over Windows is the relative lack of viruses and spyware, but OS X has that, too.



OS X runs on Darwin, which like Linux is Unix based. They're not that different. The virus point is valid though. However Windows' vulnerability to viruses can largely be blamed on it's popularity. Windows is used so much that it's the most logical platform to write viruses for.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 5, 2007)

Ripper3 said:


> Look at Vista, it has a nice looking desktop, yes, but why is it weighing in with a full DVD? Where's my office suite as standard? Etc...



You also have to factor in that it has every single Vista flavor (minus Vista x64 versions) on the single DVD.


----------



## imperialreign (Dec 5, 2007)

Linux does not have Microsoft behind the scenes writing all the code


----------



## Wile E (Dec 6, 2007)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> OS X runs on Darwin, which like Linux is Unix based. They're not that different. The virus point is valid though. However Windows' vulnerability to viruses can largely be blamed on it's popularity. Windows is used so much that it's the most logical platform to write viruses for.


I know, I was keeping it simple for the people that don't know anything about *nix based OSes.

I do feel that Mac viruses will be coming soon, and as such, Linux likely isn't far behind that.


----------



## MiST91 (Dec 20, 2007)

My view on Linux.

Good: free, can configure absolutly everything and anything to how you want it, and once again free.

Bad: (my opinion) seem to have to go well out of your way just to do somthing eg. install a program, and somtimes even run a program, and the software libary is no wear as big as windows. 

that is just my opinion on linux, i prefere windows probably because i'v been using it since 98 and in the small experiences i'v had with linux (ubuntu, suse and getoo) i cant find anything i cant do in windows


----------



## btarunr (Dec 20, 2007)

Drivers 

Windows:
Imagine I get a new web-cam, I've got Windows. What do I do? Plug it in (while the OS is running) and simply insert the support CD, a few clicks later I'm using the web cam to say hi to mom.

*nix (I count all *nix derivatives, Linux, BSD, Solaris, etc):
I get the same new web-cam, I have a "rock solid" Fedora installed. What do I do? Plug it in....whoopsie...you can't plug it in the middle of a session unless you have the hotplug.so module (which many distros don't) Ok let's plug it in a reboot....I see a blue screen...thank  God it's not BSOD(tm) it's a configuration page asking me to "configure" a newly discovered device. Ok I did it...wonder how my mom would've done that....Insert Support CD.... no *nix driver. Ok now I'm pissed....I goto the mfg's site, no driver there too....spend hours on forums, talking to uber nerds about jellybeans.....finally a helpful dude gives me a driver !!! Horray never felt this happy since my first "O".....it's in the tar.gz format....hmm ok....tar -zxpvf.....There's nothing I can click and run a la .exe . instead there's some readme.1st file....let's open it... "Dependency list...." ; "compilers" ; "sane environment" whoa whoa I'm not Paul Allen...gimme something I could install and use my hardware...not something I have to sit and compile.....ok I do what it asks....

4 hours and 2 gallons of coffee later.....success..YAY!!!...Okay where's the front-end? Maybe I asked for too much....Okay let's start GAIM (now Pidgin), where's my cam???....."The following modules are required by GAIM" ............


Okay Linux is free....but at the cost of this? Forget hardware support....look at software...games....everything....absolutely everything is so disintegrated with *nix. Everything has its own dependency list longer than a teenage girl's wishlist. God! If Linus was asking me for another name for Linux, I'd suggest Macguiver OS

Bottomline: While Linux is a very powerful and scalable free alternative to the server variants of Windows, it simply isn't a very compelling choice over Windows at the Desktop segment.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Dec 21, 2007)

i think most people who are bonkers about linux act that way because it is not microsoft. same goes for the mac fans. remember OS2 Warped?? that was a piece of crap and people loved it just because it wasnt microsoft. that being said, there really is no list of things linux has that windows does not. the closest thing i can think of is this list put together by the BSD community some years ago.   http://people.freebsd.org/~murray/bsd_flier.html

on a personal note, i get a lot of satisfaction using linux. when i run windows everything just feels stale. i cannot really describe it but i just simply do not feel involved with what i am doing on the computer. but with linux i feel apart of the experience. i love being able to freely customize my desktop. i love that just about everything is free. using ubuntu i love the flexability in adding and removing packages. i love using the command line when the usually reliable point and click method goes awry. there are so many reasons to go the linux route these days and there so many reasons not to go that route. high end gaming being one of those reasons. so you might find yourself one day tired of upgrading your system every 6 months just to stay on the cutting edge of computer gaming. when you do, just do what i did. put linux on your main rig and buy a console. you wont have to upgrade for 5 years. lol.


----------



## MilkyWay (Dec 22, 2007)

btarunr said:


> Drivers
> 
> Windows:
> Imagine I get a new web-cam, I've got Windows. What do I do? Plug it in (while the OS is running) and simply insert the support CD, a few clicks later I'm using the web cam to say hi to mom.
> ...



completly agree i had ubuntu installed all chuffed to bits it was easy to install and i started to use it but discovered that my wireless had a type of security ubunut didnt recognise to bad i had to use the ethernet cable so i tried a song it asked me if i wanted to install the codec for mp3 so i did worked fine then tried firefox well i needed adobe flash player for most stuff but i didnt understand what a tar.gz file was had to spend ages figuring out that it was a zip then i opend it and was stuck found out this had an automatic command line thing installed it fine and away i went then tried to use other stuff as i found out that ubuntu could install stuff for me but didnt know how to do that

had it then got rid of it got it again when my pc was fixed, really did my head in that it would be really stubborn i could just do stuff like windows i had to set stuff up and find out what programs to use how to install them ect just to much work mind you if i could get everything working smooth i could use it as a second rig


also too many types of linux just hard to choose which one to use


----------



## zekrahminator (Dec 22, 2007)

> What does Linux has that Windows doesn't?


Stability problems and incompatibility with everything .


----------



## Ravenas (Dec 22, 2007)

Windows normally takes longer to do just about everything, sure I may be talking about seconds, but Windows still takes longer. Mostly because Windows is just a go around of Mac (a "fake" linux).


----------



## btarunr (Dec 22, 2007)

And Linux (a "fake" unix)

BTW, Mac OS is based on the Unix kernel.


----------



## MilkyWay (Dec 23, 2007)

So Mac OS is just a fake Unix, Linux a fake Unix and what Microsoft Windows a fake Mac OS?

So what's Unix a fake what?

Whats MS Dos for that matter?

God i hate command line and text based OS :shadedshu


----------



## btarunr (Dec 23, 2007)

Mac OS is based on a legitimate Unix kernel which Apple licensed from SCO. It if not a "fake unix" because it was never suspiciously similar to another OS, like Linux was to Unix. The interface as such has nothing to do with Unix. Solaris is derived from Unix as well.


----------



## B1gg3stN00b (Dec 31, 2007)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> I support over 450 Linux machines. Most users complain about open office being complex and they keep losing their files because they don't even understand what a directory is. They open files right from the e-mail client (Ximian Evolution) and then wonder where the files went. You obviously think they have any clues about packages?
> Trust me, the more freedom in configuration and customization the less attractive something is to the greater public. Why do you think mr Jobs can sell his machines for high prices?


OpenOffice is a pleasure to work with, and Gimp is GREAT software.

I use OpenOffice over MS Office.

Also I use Firefox.

All of this for Windows.


----------



## xfire (Jan 1, 2008)

Abiword is a MS-Office clone looks pretty similar to word
Gnumeric is excel clone but directory structure might take time to understand.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jan 3, 2008)

All of these are FREE OPEN SOURCE that perform just as well i wouldnt use any other office program except Open Office as it has every program i would need suck as spreadsheet and database programs all in one.

Open source is available on windows as well so i guess linux has no excuses.

Anyone tried Amiga OS or BSD or any of the UNIX based OS what are they just the gui end of UNIX coz UNIX is just text based.

Whats so good about UNIX anyway?


----------

