'Linux is better than Windows'
[ support:100% : certainty:28 ] · [6 replies] · [0 comment]
arguments · summary
style: sort by: reverse:
supporting arguments 0% · [make argument]
no supportive arguments over 0%
opposing arguments 100% · [make argument]
by metric on 2007-04-05 00:35:52
I'll start with the last argument that Linux is pointless. FYI, this website is running on Linux.

As for a feature comparison, I think I'll attack Windows on it's lack of features that Linux has. How many filesystem types can Windows mount? Can it mount afs, xfs, jfs, reiserfs, nfs, extfs, gfs, and dozens more? Linux can mount r/w both fat32 and NTFS now. What about threads in Windows? Can you make your Windows program fork the execution context while sharing the heap, but not sharing any open file descriptors? See the Linux clone() syscall. How many architectures can Windows run on? Or rather, how many will Microsoft let you? You can't run Windows, afaik, on Alpha, ARM, ARM26, CRIS, H8300, M68000, MIPS, PA-RISC, PPC, S/390, SuperH, SPARC, v850. Though I think the Xbox is PPC based, you can't DIY. Linux was the first OS to run on the CELL processor.

The only reason Windows is easier to use is because it comes pre-installed on your machine, whereas Linux doesn't. Try a knoppix, gnoppix, or ubuntu live CD sometime.

Your 'more software' argument is only true because there are so many open source apps that also run on Windows. You can't take a commercial app and port it to Linux.

ugh.. and I left _so_ many things out. e.g., search youtube.com for 'Beryl' .

Powered by Debatepoint.