Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows Operating Systems Software Linux

After Ubuntu, Windows Looks Increasingly Bad 774

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the put-up-yer-dukes dept.
mrcgran writes "Sys-Con has a look at some advantages of using Ubuntu over Windows. 'My recent switch to a single-boot Ubuntu setup on my Thinkpad T60 simply floors me on a regular basis. Most recently it's had to do with the experience of maintaining the software. Fresh from a very long Windows 2000 experience and a four-month Windows XP experience along with a long-time Linux sys admin role puts me in a great position to assess Ubuntu. Three prior attempts over the years at using Linux as my daily desktop OS had me primed for failure. Well, Ubuntu takes Linux where I've long hoped it would go — easy to use, reliable, dependable, great applications too but more on that later. It has some elegance to it — bet you never heard that about a Linux desktop before.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

After Ubuntu, Windows Looks Increasingly Bad

Comments Filter:
  • wow, what a popup! (Score:3, Informative)

    by non (130182) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @12:50PM (#19413623) Homepage Journal
    who do i thank for that?
  • by hoover (3292) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @12:51PM (#19413629)
    I'd flag this as off topic, but that's the worst, adblock plus-evading website I've come across in a while. If that's the destiny of the web, then thanks, but no thanks, from me.

  • Print version (Score:4, Informative)

    by efence (927813) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @12:51PM (#19413643)
    Print version [sys-con.com]. The page is really ridden with ads (including a popup and a flash video).
  • by bigtangringo (800328) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @12:52PM (#19413653) Homepage
    I've been using it at work for the past several months, it accomplishes everything I need. I miss Trillian, Gaim is a mediocre substitute IMHO. I've been very impressed with how good the experience has been, I have yet to find myself thinking "Damn, I wish I had my windows box back."

    Now, I'm looking forward to UbuntuDupe's post about how Ubuntu sucks because nobody helped with his troubles using Ubuntu, despite his tantrum on the forums.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by CastrTroy (595695)
      Personally I'm a KDE user myself, so for IM I use Kopete. I find it much better than GAIM. For that though, you'll have to use Kunbuntu, or some other distro that supports KDE. I vote for Mandriva.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by WilliamTS99 (942590)
        Actually, you can run kopete perfectly fine on a regular install of Ubuntu, it will just install some kde libs. sudo apt-get install kopete Best Regards
    • I miss Trillian, Gaim is a mediocre substitute IMHO

      Unless things have changed recently, I always hated that Trillian lagged behind GAIM when updates broke compatability. IIRC, the Trillian group got their fixes from the GAIM guys. I don't need my IM client to be pretty, I just need it to work, and that's GAIM.
  • ... with the Linux vs. Windows chenanigans.

    Flamebait I say :s

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @12:53PM (#19413667)
    ...or the user?

    "...a long-time Linux sys admin role puts me in a great position to assess Ubuntu. Three prior attempts over the years at using Linux as my daily desktop OS had me primed for failure."

    If a Linux sysadmin can't use Linux on the desktop, it must be a terrible desktop OS! Right? Right? *looks around frantically*

    Come on, man. There are plenty of people who have been using Linux as their daily desktop. That would be why there have been so many "desktop" versions of Linux over the years.
  • Nice pitch, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fx.Dr (915071) <<exterminans> ... thelosthour.com>> on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @12:55PM (#19413695)
    "Fresh from a very long Windows 2000 experience and a four-month Windows XP experience along with a long-time Linux sys admin role puts me in a great position to assess Ubuntu."

    TFA reads less like a comparison of two OS's than an Ubuntu sales pitch. Granted, I use and love Ubuntu, but I like my side-by-sides with a little less bias from the get-go.
    • by SatanicPuppy (611928) * <SatanicpuppyNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @02:10PM (#19414863) Journal
      Seriously. So he's used XP for a big four months and is in a position to critique all of Windows?

      Don't get me wrong. I have a lot more use for linux than windows...My windows PC is basically a beefy Xbox that I occasionally use to run photoshop and dreamweaver.

      But a passing familiarity with XP doesn't qualify you to judge all of Microsoft. What about Win2k3? What about Vista? A Vista-to-Feisty comparison would at least be apples to apples. Comparing an OS released in April to two released in 2000 and 2001 respectively, is absurd.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by owlstead (636356)
        Bah, he ran Win2k for a long time before that. 4 months might not be much to get to know an operating system (and the apps around it of course) but WinXP is not *that* much different from Win2k. And you don't want to go and install Vista on a older PC.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Reliable. Locked down by default. Runs all the apps, games and multimedia Linux may never have. MS's first good OS deliverable.

    I guess they may have compared 2003, but I guess he is just finding out about XP, so he is a little behind the times.
  • I've used KDE as my primary work desktop for 5 years. Sometimes there were limitations, but those were easily overcome. Things got even simpler when we switched to terminal services for some of our corporate desktops. E-mail was always an issue with an exchange backend, but Kontact has filled that void since we migrated to Exchange 2000. OpenOffice handled all the spreadsheets, and the applications that I could not run via wine were first handled by an old box using VNC, then remote desktop once that wa
  • Features (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CastrTroy (595695) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @12:56PM (#19413735) Homepage

    One of the things that's become clear as I've gotten used to the appliance-like experience of Ubuntu is that the future of software in an open source-dominated world is going to be significantly different than the world dominated by Microsoft. So what distant point on the horizon has Ubuntu shone a light on for me? Simple. Software will increasingly compete on ease of use in the total software experience more than on features. The future will be more about being simple than about any other dimension.
    Isn't usability and simplicity just another feature? Maybe I'm a bit lost here as to what he's trying to say, I'd sum it up more like this. The future software will be about features and not about proprietary systems and formats that lock you into one vendor.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TrippTDF (513419)
      I think he's getting at "Features are less important than ease of use is."

      I worked at a software company that made this product that could do a lot of things, and it did them fairly well. However, the software was a beast to navigate and understand... in the year that I was there, there were entire sections of it that I didn't have a clue how to use, despite repeatedly trying to figure them out. Now, if a potential client asked "can your software do X?" the answer would be "yes", but in reality, making
  • by AeroIllini (726211) <[aeroillini] [at] [gmail.com]> on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @12:56PM (#19413737)
    Linux better than Windows for sysadmin tasks!

    News at 11.
  • Me too! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by s31523 (926314) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @12:57PM (#19413739)
    I switched one of my computers to Ubunutu after my Windows 2000 got yet another set of spyware/virus files that could not easily be removed. For the basic mundane stuff I love it, web browsing especially. I can't tell you how nice it is to know that the probability of getting some spyware or virus or whatever is virtually zero. Will this change as Ubuntu becomes more popular, who knows, but for now, I use Ubuntu for 90% of my web browsing, even on my dual-boot laptop.
  • more evidence (Score:3, Informative)

    by jcgf (688310) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @12:57PM (#19413755)
    I've always found it easier to install linux than windows or at least for the past few years and for the same reasons listed in the article. No virus scanner, no serial numbers, fewer cds, more included software all make it very nice. Installing software is easier in ubuntu too.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by hattable (981637)
      It may be a bit too easy in some distributions. I have actually, accidentally installed Linux before. It wasn't a problem but I put in the cd, left for a moment and came back 'ready to get started' and it was over.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Belial6 (794905)
      My son installed Ubuntu 5.10 just before his third birthday. I had him do it just as an experiment. I wanted to see if how easy it was to install was just my imagination or not. No, it was not. He was not able to get through a Windows install on his own right after that. The reason was that he could not read yet. Of course, with Ubuntu, you don't even have to know how to read to get up and running.

      Ubuntu, so easy a 2 year old can install it.
      • by kypper (446750) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @02:13PM (#19414929)
        Jesus! Look, I'm just going out on a limb here, but I'm going to assume that your son will have acne and a completely exaggerated fear/awe of women by 5.
  • Symantec? (Score:5, Informative)

    by hexed_2050 (841538) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @12:57PM (#19413757)
    I'm not sure if the writer was intentionally attempting to jinx the Windows install, but who in the right mind still installs or recommends Symantec/Norton when great products like Kaspersky now exist?

    Ever try removing Norton from a system? It's like pulling wisdom teeth!

    I understand that virus protection wasn't the main focus of the article, but he did make reference to it, and in the defense of Windows and giving the article a bit more of a balanced test, the testers should at least make sure they are using good 3rd party products.

    h
    • FUD (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mcmonkey (96054)

      I understand that virus protection wasn't the main focus of the article

      Are you sure? The article mentions Symantec more often than Microsoft. I don't doubt the moral of the story--the advantages of Ubuntu over XP--but the body of the article if FUD.

      He makes it sound like Symantec AV is a) absolutely 100% required to run Windows, yet at the same time, b) makes Windows 100% unusable. In fact, neither is true. Okay, there is some evidence for point b, but point a is crap. There are plenty of other opt

  • by KIFulgore (972701) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @12:58PM (#19413759)
    "...along with a long-time Linux sys admin role puts me in a great position to assess Ubuntu"

    I find sys admins often don't make the best user-friendly assessments of desktop software and OSs, especially from average Joe's point of view. No offense to the author, who makes many valid points, but I'd rather see a comparison of Ubuntu, Vista, and OS X from a school teacher or small business owner.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Frosty Piss (770223)

      I find sys admins often don't make the best user-friendly assessments of desktop software and OSs, especially from average Joe's point of view. No offense to the author, who makes many valid points, but I'd rather see a comparison of Ubuntu, Vista, and OS X from a school teacher or small business owner.

      And this, people, is why Linux will *never* own significant acrege in the desktop market: The people who drive most Linux development *are not* interested in desktop usability and *user* experience. This is

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by xenocide2 (231786)

        he people who drive most Linux development *are not* interested in desktop usability and *user* experience. This is not a troll / flamebait / cut...

        Maybe not, but it is an opinion backed by mere assertion. Which is equally worthless.

        it's simply the truth

        Then I guess I'll inform Quinn Storm (Colin Quinn I think is their real name) and Compiz / Beryl that they are no longer "Linux developers." Or maybe it's not the truth. Since GNOME, KDE, OpenBox, E17 all seem to care. They have different opinions, true enough. But to say they're not interested in desktop usability is so far from the mark you deserve some +Funny moderation.

    • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @01:25PM (#19414183)
      Because I find that systems/network tools are one of Linux's strongest points. I mean let's see what I need for doing the systems support part of my job:

      --E-Mail: Check. Linux has Thunderbird, which is what I use under Windows.
      --Web: Check. Again, same thing as I'd use under Windows (Firefox).
      --SSH: Check. Maybe the command line SSH client isn't quite as pretty, but it works in ever way as well.
      --Remote Desktop: Check. Not as slick as the Windows one, but doesn't lack for anything important.
      --Text editor: Check. I like UltraEdit better, but there are plenty that work fine for Linux.
      --Ability to map SMB and/or NFS shares: Check.

      That's pretty much it for the major tools I need. So long as I can check on the problems that need solving, and get to the servers that they need solving on, that's all my system needs to do for that part of the job. Linux does that just fine. Hell, so does Solaris.

      However that doesn't carry over to other areas necessarily. A good example of where it doesn't is media production. The tools for Linux are sub par at best in my experience. In theory it might be possible to do what I need, but in practice I have never been able to figure out how and it is just too much effort. For Windows I just install Sony Vegas and go, it makes everything easy. In Linux it is fighting with many different tools, some of which are quite hard to get compiled (no binary distribution) none of which seem to be able to do everything that is needed.

      So picking an area that Linux is strongest at isn't necessarily that useful, especially when talking Linux on the desktop. I mean I've known sysadmins that use Solaris as their desktop OS, doesn't mean that anyone would suggest it is intended for prime time desktop usage. Also, sysadmins are (or at least should be) more able to deal with some of the problems you'll encounter. Dropping to a command line it something a sysadmin should be able to do. A normal user? Not so much. If it isn't pointy and clicky with everything spelled out, it may be past their competence.
  • No, not really. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AbandonAllHope (211475) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @12:58PM (#19413771)

    ...long with a long-time Linux sys admin role puts me in a great position to assess Ubuntu.
    Right. Can you imagine the response had someone said "As a long time Windows server admin, I'm in a great position to assess Vista". Seriously, how many more articles about long time linux users "discovering" they love this or that distro are we in for?
  • that is what is wrong with windows and oems they should give free disk and stop useing restore partitions.
  • Will get bashed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by majortom1981 (949402) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @01:01PM (#19413811)
    I will get bashed since slashdot is linux fanboy heaven but this is my experience. Ubuntu will not become mainstream until most isntals work with no command line needed what so ever. i have tried ubuntu on my laptop and on a p3 450 hp comp and both required command line help to get the basic system working.

    For system admins linux might be good but if 30 min of fiddling with the command line to just get the system working is needed then it will not become mainstream.

    Also on that hp comp ubuntu takes n15 min to boot up. I am not lying. Xp on the same machine is much faster.I tried getting help on some linux boards and all I got were nasty replies.

    So there is a lot of things that have to be done before linux becomes mainstream and really fights microsoft.

    Go ahead and bash me all you want butthis is true.
    • by icsEater (1093717) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @01:22PM (#19414129)
      If you're going to be a troll, at least try to be creative.

      I'm sick of all these templatized flamebaits:

      1. start with lame attempt at reverse psychology disclaimer.
      2. Insert singular bad experience with Linux.
      3. Omit all relevant detail so you won't be embarassed when others point out the real source of the problems you were complaining.
      4. Recycle old complaints about Linux. Choose from the following:
              a) can't install hardware
              b) my device Blah doesn't work
              c) user interface is ugly
              d) there aren't any games
              e) my software Blah doesn't work
              f) boot time is slow
      5. Repeat lame reverse psychology blurb in the beginning.
         
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by michaelwigle (822387)
      I have no intention to bash you because I understand what you are saying. However, I would like to point out a couple things about the scenario you put forward. First, I noticed that you are running a P3-450. Now, I know many people will say you can run Linux on older hardware, and that's technically true. But if you are going to run the latest version of Ubuntu, for example, I've found that a 1 GHz processor and 512 MB RAM or better is the real world minimum for a reasonable bootup time and performance. Ho
  • by Vexorian (959249)

    I loved Ubuntu when I tried it, but I still use windows a lot, why? Because of some pieces of software that lock me into it and WINE being essentially unable to run them.

    But, I'd like to be realistic about this, setting up a printer was still very bad for me in Ubuntu, although that was probably HP to take the blame, the worst thing is that there is no way to make my scanner work on Ubuntu.

    There were plenty of good things, OpenOffice in linux is just too good and responsive, I tried it in windows and it

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ParadoxDruid (602583)

      I loved Ubuntu when I tried it, but I still use windows a lot, why? Because of some pieces of software that lock me into it and WINE being essentially unable to run them.

      I recently switched my home box from dual-partition to Kubuntu only, so I'm genuinely curious what applications are holding you back. In my experience, there were a few troubling cases, and their resolution:

      • Photoshop. I've tried to like the Gimp, but it's just not there. Luckily, Photoshop 5.0 runs perfectly (and is very responsive) under WINE. If you needed the latest and greatest Photoshop (which I don't, I just use it for simple image processing for academia), it might be a problem, I guess.
      • Gam
  • by CompMD (522020) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @01:04PM (#19413853)
    FTFA:

    "2) Vulnerabilities - Windows is like Swiss cheese with so many vulnerabilities that it's sick - you can't connect XP to a public Internet connection (i.e., behind a router is OK but direct to the net isn't). Ubuntu? It's Linux - no worries."

    I call bullshit on the author being a Linux admin. I'm not trolling and this certainly isn't flamebait, only truth: "It's Linux - no worries" is a load of crap and everyone here knows it.
    • by HalAtWork (926717) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @01:44PM (#19414497)
      I call bullshit on the author being a Linux admin. I'm not trolling and this certainly isn't flamebait, only truth: "It's Linux - no worries" is a load of crap and everyone here knows it.

      He's talking about running it on the desktop here... Really, there aren't any worries if you don't have a firewall and connect the default Ubuntu to the 'net. Pretty much all services that would be exposed to network are disabled or not installed by default anyway. What exactly is your problem with connecting a default install of Ubuntu desktop to the 'net and giving it to grandma?
    • I call bullshit on the author being a Linux admin. I'm not trolling and this certainly isn't flamebait, only truth: "It's Linux - no worries" is a load of crap and everyone here knows it.

      Surely you jest!

      I've used rsync for backups for years. I back up my mail, my Thunderbird data, and "my document" directory (i.e., /home/xxxx/). One of these backup commands looks like this and sits in a single shell script and runs from cron once a day (I've already sent the ssh key to the backup target server so no nee

  • by bigmaddog (184845) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @01:09PM (#19413909)

    From TFA:

    1)Viruses - I no longer worry and I no longer need to check my PC - that's a relief. You can pick nits here about security but the bottom line is Ubuntu is orders of magnitude better.

    2)Vulnerabilities - Windows is like Swiss cheese with so many vulnerabilities that it's sick - you can't connect XP to a public Internet connection (i.e., behind a router is OK but direct to the net isn't). Ubuntu? It's Linux - no worries.

    That's FANTASTIC! Who is this guy and what's his IP?

    Yes, MS sucks, Windows sucks, bugs galore and all that, but all nontrivial software is going to have bugs, and some of those bugs will lead to vulnerabilities, and some of those vulnerabilities will lead to viruses, attacks and so on. The reason that there aren't a lot of Linux viruses/attacks prawling around the net is because the Windows population is orders of magnitude larger than than the Linux population, making the choice obvious for any would-be parasite. Maybe Ubuntu is way better software than Windows in any number of ways - ehm, I mean, of course it is, but if it were to sweep Windows clean off the face of the Earth and take its place, you'd be installing Symantec for Ubuntu and worrying about script kiddies, trojans and the like. If Ubuntu is better then it'll be harder to exploit, but exploits will happen - the perceived calm right now exists because too few people are trying to attack the platform.

  • by QuantumG (50515) <qg@biodome.org> on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @01:10PM (#19413931) Homepage Journal

    1) Viruses - I no longer worry and I no longer need to check my PC - that's a relief. You can pick nits here about security but the bottom line is Ubuntu is orders of magnitude better.

    2) Vulnerabilities - Windows is like Swiss cheese with so many vulnerabilities that it's sick - you can't connect XP to a public Internet connection (i.e., behind a router is OK but direct to the net isn't). Ubuntu? It's Linux - no worries.

    3) Thanks to #1 and #2, I'm free from products like Symantec and Norton and the dollar expense, the complexity of administering them (those pop-ups are annoying and a productivity hit), and wondering when they expire next.
    Wow, I wonder where I've heard this before. Sheesh. Yes, Linux has a better security model than the typical "make everyone administrator" model used on Windows systems, but this does not make Linux magically bullet proof. As for not needing anti-virus or anti-spyware software for Linux.. you don't need them for Mac either. Why is that? Cause no-one could be bothered writing a virus or some spyware for such a minuscule amount of the market.

    But look at what happened with Firefox. Initially, just like Linux or Mac, no-one bothered trying to break the security. There was no hacks to get around popup blockers, etc. Now Firefox is just a little more popular and the threat landscape has changed.

    This isn't to say that Linux can't be made more resilient to viruses if and when they finally show up. It can, and, more importantly, it probably will. Just don't go around saying that Linux is immune to viruses and spyware. Especially, don't go around claiming that this stuff is impossible, because that's exactly the kind of challenge that blackhats go for.
    • Logical Fallacy (Score:3, Interesting)

      by geekoid (135745)
      "Cause no-one could be bothered writing a virus or some spyware for such a minuscule amount of the market."

      Myth.

      It assumes that all three OSs are designed developed and written the same way. they are not.

      The person that writes an in the wild virus for OSX will get a lot of notoriety. Probably enough to get funding for their own anti-virus for the Mac company; which could include a multi-million dollar exit strategy when one of the big names buys the company.

      Linux and OSX are inherently more secure due to th
  • The List (Score:5, Informative)

    by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @01:12PM (#19413969)

    Whenever these discussions come up, I like to forestall some of the repetition by posting my list of wins for OS X, Windows, and Linux. This is a list of the things each OS does better than some others, not a list of problems. Feel free to post and suggest other items, but please know what you;re talking about. I hate getting posts from people who clearly have never used two of the OS's in question and are simply assuming their favorite OS must do it better.

    OS X Wins:

    • Sane UI choices - OS X does not ignore the last two decades worth of human/computer interaction research.
    • System services - global (nearly) spellchecking, dictionary/thesaurus, and plug-in functionality like grammar checking, language translation, only reference lookups, bibliography formatting, etc.
    • OpenStep application bundles - drag and drop installation and uninstallation of most applications, e-mail or IM working programs without having to save installers, run software off an ipod or thumb drive without having to install (including remembering per-machine preferences), easy binaries for multiple platforms, finding resources in packages is much easier and requires no tools.
    • Security - for a variety of reasons that don't matter to most end users, OS X users have never had to worry about malware or worms and probably will not have to in the foreseeable future.
    • Usable shell environment - bash, tcsh, whatever; the CLI on OS X is very usable and powerful and a first class citizen. We'll see if this comparison changes when Monad is released.
    • Automater - scripting usable by secretaries. This is the easiest tool for some tasks and the only automation/scripting I've seen that some novices can quickly learn and use.
    • Included applications - both CLI tools, GUI utilities, and GUI applications, OS X has more and nicer ones than Windows you include iTunes, iPhoto, Preview, etc., etc.
    • Upgrading hardware - upgrading a mac to a mac is as easy as plugging in a firewire cable clicking a button. This saves a lot of time and effort, amazingly better
    • Ubiquitous zeroconf - automatically and instantly finds printers, local chat, streaming music, file shares, and collaborative documents
    • PDF support - create PDFs from everywhere and viewing is fast, fast, fast compared to Vista.
    • Emulation/ports/virtualization/compatability - it is easier to run Linux and Windows software on OS X and there are more options to do so on OS X, than there are to run Linux and OS X apps on Windows (yeah I know about cygwin and Apple's licensing and the relative number of apps)
    • Easier support of third party devices, plug them in and they just work much more often.
    • No Registration - never worry about entering serial numbers or tracking them or you computer deciding you're a dirty pirate.

    Windows Vista Wins:

    • Application availability - more developers target Windows and eventually a lot of people want to run some niche software that does not work without Windows
    • Not tied to one hardware vendor - If you run Windows you have more hardware choices and likely get a machine that meets your needs more cheaply than a Mac, as a result.
    • Package manager - Windows has a pretty lame software install/uninstall manager, but it is still better than nothing
    • Antivirus/phishing features - OS X and Linux don't have a lot of need, but this is still not a bad precaution
    • Remote desktop features - have clients for more platforms than OS X's comparable feature, and is better than Linux for a few tasks, but worse for others.
    • Wider support for third party devices, everyone makes a Windows driver, not everyone makes an OS X or Linux driver
    • Easier to find unofficial support from random people you know
    • Indexed searching is useable by default, unlike most Linux distros
    • Default color support has poorer management and accuracy, but wider range
    • Application level granularity of sound controls is usefu
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      If you don't mind some additions:

      linux wins:
      * can run efficiently on cheap, out of date x86 machines
      * g++ and lots of developer tools pre-installed by most distros
      * out of the box can scale to 64 CPU's. some kernel tweaks and IBM uses it as a supercomputer OS with thousands of nodes.
      * wide variety of virtualization solutions, many of them completely free

      windows wins:
      * easier to control large number of machines in a corporate environment
      * support techs are cheaper to employ
      * games, games, games

      mac wins:
      * th
  • Ubuntu Fonts (Score:3, Informative)

    by mikeboone (163222) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @01:17PM (#19414067) Homepage Journal
    I recently ran out of room on my HD for an XP install on my laptop. I bought a new drive and I installed Ubuntu Feisty on it. I was pretty impressed. I was able to do nearly everything I needed, mainly web development stuff. Even the power management seemed to be working. But I could not get the fonts to my liking...for whatever reason they just didn't look right, and they bothered my eyes. None of the settings that I tweaked helped significantly. So for now I'm back to XP, but I will investigate improving Ubuntu's fonts in the meantime.

    P.S. One thing I missed from the Windows world was a simple RPN calculator like XCalc.
  • by xENoLocO (773565) * on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @01:32PM (#19414283) Homepage
    Linux expert gives linux positive review and shuns windows on a linux site, as reported by linux-associated news site. Story at 8!
  • Shocking! (Score:5, Funny)

    by koreth (409849) * on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @01:36PM (#19414371)
    A page on "linux.sys-con.com" finds Linux superior to Windows! Pardon me while I climb back onto the chair I just fell out of.
  • by endofoctober (660252) <jk.cole@ifredsay ... inus threevowels> on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @01:36PM (#19414373) Homepage
    After our warranty ran out on our ThinkPad T40, I decided to give Ubuntu a try, and am so far very pleased with it. The install was pretty straightforward, configuration was smooth, and we had no hardware/driver issues to speak of. Connecting up with our wireless router was a breeze, and really the only glitch has to do with our CUPS-enabled printer.

    Frankly I was glad to find Ubuntu this easy to install and use because I thought our laptop was done for. Like the author, we had a corrupt Windows partition, and had to start from scratch. After we got everything installed and configured (less than an hour), I was on the deck working on docs and getting things done.

    Anyone with a T40 or similar should give some serious thought to at least trying out Ubuntu. While it won't do everything a Linux admin would want, it's more than enough to keep users productive.
  • by dAzED1 (33635) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @01:45PM (#19414509) Homepage Journal
    has it already been 12 hours since the last "Ubuntu is great!" article?

    Just um, how often do we need to see these, anyway?
  • by sheldon (2322) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @01:47PM (#19414537)
    I'm pretty certain it was late 2001.

    And this guy has only been using XP for four months?

    Call me unimpressed with his "great position" to evaluate software.

Line Printer paper is strongest at the perforations.

Working...