What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
136 Comments
- ScoTTeh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I use both Linux and Windows and i have to say this is *****. While Linux is improving in this area, it hasnt passed Windows yet. What also make a statement like this complicated, is the fact that there are so many distros. Out of the ones ive used Ubuntu is the only one close to being as managable as Windows currently is.
- verucasalt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Study sponsored by a linux vendor. NO DIGG
- kmartshopper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Show me group policy in Linux and I will agree with you...
Of couse using Linux on your laptop/desktop for typing a 3 line document is equally as easy if you are using M$ write, Ubuntu and abiword, or whatever you are using. In fact, managing such machines is trivial.
Now try managing 5000 users, restricting their access to multiple things, automating the deployment of updates, setting each users homepage, web browser cache size, locking down what they can and cannot see on the network... this is all near trivial in Windows. Without something like group policy in Linux, you will spend much more time trying to script these things and making a simple change will not be so simple anymore.
A Windows server class OS can be up and running on a domain with half these settings with several hours of installing/good work. With Linux you have to write all these utilities yourself -- not exactly 'easy'.
I love Linux, but it's still not there yet. - senfo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Stop flaming linux! Have you ever used it for extended period of time to say that is more difficult to manage? I find that a peace of mind is worth spending some time on learning linux."
I love Linux just as much as the next guy and I use it daily. It has its pros and it has its cons. But when it comes down to it, basic management of a Windows system is almost always easier. However, that ease comes at a price. Linux is almost always has more to offer as far a features.
I still think Linux excels greatly as a server. The desktop market, however, still leaves a little something to be desired. Take, for example, GIMP. Ask any hardcore GIMP user why Photoshop dominates over GIMP and they'll likely come up with something to do with Microsoft dominance or something similar. Ask any hardcore graphics designer why they prefer Photoshop over GIMP, however, and it becomes quite clear that the UI Photoshop has to offer is just leaps and bounds ahead of GIMP.
When you're the underdog, it's important to pay attention to what your competition is doing --especially if the competition is doing well. They obviously got there for a reason, so it's very important to note why. From where I sit, GIMP appears to be the victim of a group of smart people defending a bad idea (http://www.scottberkun.com/essays/essay40.htm). Linux management suffers from a similar flaw, most often caused by stubbornness to adapt or accept a better idea. - shakin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3kmartshopper, try using ACLs or Netware on Linux.
I also think too many people here are ragging on Linux because they don't know how to use it. Personally, I think Microsoft makes Windows look easy to administer because you can click a few buttons, but probably 95% of all Windows servers I've seen have been misconfigured. A huge portion of that problem has to do with the (supposedly changing) Microsoft policy of opening everything until the admin locks it down. Windows is damn hard to configure properly, but really easy to get working.
SELinux comes setup out of the box on Linux distros such as Fedora and RHEL. Let's see how easily you can setup that sort of security on Windows. Oh... Windows doesn't look so easy now, does it? Ok, maybe you can automate creating IIS virtual servers from a web page form submission (like for shared hosting setup). Whoops... that's pretty difficult as well. On Linux I'd just copy an Apache template and fill in the new values. Surely it'd be easy to chroot an ftp server to protect the rest of the server in case of a break-in. Um... no, actually that would be extraordinarily difficult with Windows.
I've been a Windows and Linux admin and the truth is that getting things setup on Windows is often easier, but you are also far more limited in how you configure things. Linux is easier to administer ongoing because updates are integrated ('apt-get upgrade' will upgrade all software on the whole system, not just the OS). - cr3ative, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I agree with Hercules. Linux can never be a desktop system for users.
Try installing a program on windows or apple. Install? Yes? *click* Installed.
Linux though.. Install? Yes? *click* 48 Dependencies unmet. Fail. - senfo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Funny how Ubuntu is listed here multiple times as one of the easier distros to manage because I personally find it to be one of the worst. For the most part, I think any package manager is flawed, which is why I prefer Gentoo over all others. I get so sick of library dependency issues and everything breaking when you install a newer version of a C++ library. It's truly a sad state of affairs because Linux has so much more potential; but people insist on these idiotic short comings that make Linux look bad. And yeah, I prefer Gentoo; but, I wouldn't even begin to know how to teach a non-techy how to perform an upgrade. But the stubbornness of many Linux software developers is why Microsoft has continued to lead the desktop market.
- phoenix11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I would not trust a MS-sponsored study of Windows, likewise, I do not trust a Linux vendor-sponsored study of Linux. Nodigg4u.
- ndansmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Proof. That one word was all it took for me to discuss this story as silliness.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That article was really short with no useful information. It suggests that small enterprise take another look at Linux if they had trouble with it in the past. It didn't explain what type of enterprise, theres all kinds of "enterprise" definations. Theres a server farm at a 3d animation studio, then theres a computer on everyone's desk at a company, and everything in between. Linux Distros might have finally got their act together with the install process (Ubuntu is almost exactly like Windows XP now), but after installation, good luck getting your Distro to do the things you'd expect a higly regarded operating system to do. I applaud all the people who say... "Well I'm sick of the problem, and I'm going to make the ultimate distro that "just works"." But I'm mad too, because every person who started a distro probably said that to themself, and ended up just making more problems and incompatablities. They need to work together.
[rant]
Good luck getting the included movie player in Ubuntu to play movies... Good luck getting the included music player to play music... Once you do figure out how to install codecs, you will be dissapointed in them. Totem thinks a wmv file is audio. mplayer gets plugged into webpages to replace default embeds shoddy at best. Linux Flash player isn't worth crap with the more high tech stuff like components and remoting (even when exported as version 7). Still trying to figure out why the default install of Ubuntu takes about 9 gigs and doesn't do the most basic and obvious things people need. I do give Ubuntu props for including gaim and Open Office already installed (and working). They got that right. But whats up with the firefox icon? And who would want to play those horrible remakes of games? I know they are little things, but they add up.
I don't blame Linux, I'm sure the kernel is nice and allows developers just as much freedom or more than Windows. I blame the developers who have been jerryrigging distros around that kernel, and not working together for compatability. Apps built for a specific desktop. A dozen proprietary ways to install software that is still not as obvious as double clicking something called "install.exe". I'm not whining, these are very obvious and basic things that an OS needs. I think the top 10 distros, not to forget the live cd and power pc guys, as well as top desktop environments (like kde and gnome), should be locked in an office together for a month. Get a common system for doing everything. There will always be the power user way of installing software, but there needs to be an easy way too that just installs into a default directory, and such. And both the power and easy ways need to be compatable across distros and desktops.
I'm not a Linux expert. I tried Ubuntu for 4 days before reinstalling Windows XP. I don't know whats best for it or what its goals are. I hear that Linux will be THE operating system, for whatever reason, whether desktop, server, embeded, portable, etc. Then I hear hardcore Linux guys proud of the way things currently are and themselves say Linux isn't meant for desktop, its only for server admins and such.
[/rant] - fanboydcs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I find linux to be much easier to manage than windows, its just cause I have more experiece and tools with linux. For example I can be at home and do anything I want to my unix machines that are at work. ssh, scp all amazing tools, with windows I need another windows box to do any kind of remote management, and dont say vnc, vnc sucks. And with debian, I just type apt-get install apache and it will grab all the dependencies for me, I guess you guys are just using the wrong distros...
- shrapnull, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Is it just me or do the digg forums read like something you'd see on myspace? Tons of idiotic teens that have no real world experience using any of this stuff?
Active Directory is tinkertoy simple, but Open Directory and LDAP have done the same thing for years. You take a polished distro like Red Hat, Novell/SuSE, etc and you can do the same stuff with less money spent on server software. They can cross integrate with each other's Directory Services as well (AD + OD + LDAP all on the same network).
Chop-shop distro's like Debian and Gentoo have never been considered for corporate, and they don't want to be. The distros that gear up for Windows competition (see above) have seriously gotten their ***** together over the last few years. You can order boxen preloaded with the distro's to ensure 100% driver compatibility/availability and once that ground is level you have parity. - MOGua, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Try installing a program on windows or apple. Install? Yes? *click* Installed.
Linux though.. Install? Yes? *click* 48 Dependencies unmet. Fail."
lol, so true. +3. - lemz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2For as long as you **need** to run a console to do basic tasks linux will remain server and hacker OS regardless if it has all the potential in the world.
I'm a user and as a user I don't want to tinker, tweak, configure or compile things. I don't want to be fetching missing libraries and I don't want to shut down my GUI to change resolution.
I actually tried last night latest Ubuntu because I had to reimage my laptop. I was going to run VMWare Player and run windows inside for work. Installing VMWare player consisted of answering 20 questions, half of which I didn't understand. Installing same player on windows consisted of clicking a few times and then at the end. As a user, this is the kind of experience I expect and I couldn't care less how much more secure it is and what not. If it's a constant struggle to get things done, I'm going to pass.
I'm a windows user. I didn't have a problem managing OSX for the first time. I find it impossible to manage Linux. - Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Linux has about 40 different installation programs that you can "get" (meaning you have to download them, they don't come default)"
So, that's like saying Windows is dumb because you can download and install different web browsers on it. Package managers are just software tools. You can pick a choose whatever you want. Also, by default each distribution has pre-installed and configured its preferred package management system; all of which are more robust and easier to use than the Windows installation mechanism. Personally, I think Apple has the best installers, but that's just me.
"or you can try and command line it"
The only way to go in my opinion.
"[command line is] (not end user friendly)"
That is quite subjective. Let's say you want to rename all of your .jpeg files to .jpg. Which is easier? Slowly double-clicking each one of them and changing the extension, or typing a one line command at the prompt? (The right answer is the prompt). GUIs are great, but there are just some things they aren't good at.
"or you can get an RPM and HOPE they have ALL the packages..."
Or run apt or portage and not worry about it.
"I couldn't even get Linux to set my htdocs folder to a different folder due to "permission problems""
Just because you don't know how to do something doesn't mean that it is wrong, poorly designed, or unintuitive. Your inability to perform this action is a reflection on you, not on Linux.
"When the day comes that I can install any software package I want with a double click and easy to use menu without having to learn command line or find missing packages, that's the day I'll switch over, and not a day sooner."
Every OS fails your expectations using that criteria. Now, if you'd like to limit it to every software package supported on a given platform, then that day is already here. - mancat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Note that the article compares management ease for IT PROFESSIONALS, not your grandma.
- Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ Moocat
So, I say that Linux is different that Windows and requires you to actually learn something and your response is that I am wrong because your grandma doesn't know how to use a command line?
Here's a task for you (using two SKILLED people, one for each OS): Recursively search through a directory structure for all .jpeg files (assume that there are 10,000 of them), rename those files to .jpg, and then zip them all up into an archive named My Pictures.zip.
While you are spending the next three weeks working with your GUI and mouse to accomplish this task, I'll just type a single line of piped commands at the command line and walk away.
If your argument is that you don't want to learn, then fine. Don't. But, if the argument is whether Linux has a lower cost of ownership than Windows, then sheer ignorance has nothing to do with the comparison. It's like saying a Tercel is a more powerful car than an RX-8 because you don't know how to drive a stick. - Septimus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When something doesn't install in Windows, you download a driver, pretty much no matter how obscure the hardware. In Linux you have to write one (exaggeration for the point).
Your SATA argument is way off. SATA, SATA II just works. Unless you are trying to install Windows NT4, which from what your saying was the last time you used a Windows machine. - adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I agree with ScTTeh
- Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ septimus
"Your SATA argument is way off. SATA, SATA II just works. Unless you are trying to install Windows NT4, which from what your saying was the last time you used a Windows machine."
You are wrong on both counts. First of all, I am a developer who uses Windows all the time at work. I just happen to think Linux is a much better platform all around than Windows is.
Secondly, install Windows XP from scratch on a machine that only has SATA hard drives. As a regular user, you have to have a floppy drive and a floppy disk with drivers on it during the Windows XP setup in order to install SATA drivers for your controller. You could just install Windows XP, get on the internet, and download those driver, I suppose, except for the fact that without SATA support during install, you aren't going to be installing a damn thing (unless it is BSD or Linux).
Why? Because Windows installer is too damn stupid to support reading driver data from a CD.
Also, if you are trying to convince me that Windows never has problems with drivers (downloaded or otherwise) you are running a vanilla Dell and have never added anything to it.
Fact is there are problems with Windows and they are just as hard to solve as problems on Linux; in spite of your efforts to change the parameters of my statement to make it look otherwise. - jodamiller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Proof on a SUBJECTIVE claim. Awesome!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The proof is in a survey of 200 managers by Enterprise Management Associates, a market research firm. It was sponsored by Levanta, which makes a Linux-based change management product. "
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Absolutely NO Digg. - chris4404, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Active Directory for the win....
NO Digg. - kmartshopper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh and by the way, as a follow-up to my last comment -- if you want to talk small business... try a Windows SBS server. You can have a complete setup in mere hours - everything from mail to users to machines. A beautiful OS if it fits your needs and you don't need something more powerful.
- samdu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Linux is actually >easier< to manage than Windows in my experience. But that's from a system administor's angle. From an end user's pov, Windows is still ahead in this area. But on the server side of things - Microsoft just does things in illogical ways in most applications. On a Linux box, I can go to a config file and tweak what I need to tweak, no muss, no fuss. On a Windows server, you have to jump through artificial hoops to get to some things. Plus, Linux wins hands down on logging information. I can get a Linux box to log pretty much anything I want it to. Not so on a Windows machine. I'm basically stuck with what MS wants me to be able to log.
- Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I completely disagree with ScoTTeh and all those who agree with him/her.
If you install Windows and it all just works and you compare that to a Linux installation where everything just works, then it is pretty much a wash.
When you install Windows and something (say SATA support) doesn't just work. It is a giant pain in the "billen" to get it to work (if you can at all). This is especially true in the case of SATA drivers when you don't have a floppy drive or your hardware vendor supplied the Windows SATA drivers on a CD and you don't have another machine to use to copy them to a floppy.
On Linux, when there is a problem, it can be a pain, but usually there is a solution that doesn't require more machines, a floppy drive, etc.
I would compare the pain when Linux has a problem to sitting on a tack. I would compare the pain when Windows has a problem to a swift kick in the fun bag.
Problems cause stress and pain in both environments, so in my mind, the real money shot is what you can do with your machine when things are working correctly. For me, Linux wins hands down in this area. - count_z, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Windows is MUCH easier to manage than Linux, anyone who suggests otherwise is seriously delusional.
Does that bother me? Hell no, I trust Linux admins more than so-called Windows administrators *because* they need to have a better understanding of the operating system and they need to actually know how to use the command line do shell scripting (there are MSCEs who don't know how to use the command line).
Windows RRAS is much, much easier to use than the Cisco IOS but Cisco is the better solution (infinately better) and 99 times out of 100 a guy who knows the Cisco IOS will be far more proficient in routing/networking than someone who only knows how to use RRAS under Windows.
It's not about what's easier to use (it's easier to drive a Honda Civic with an automatic transmission than it is to drive a Ferrari), it's using the best tool for the job.
Granted with Novell, Linux management has come a very long way... but it's not free. So if you want free and full open source, you'll have to live with more limited management options. If you're a hardcore Linux admin, you won't even install X on your server unless you absolutely have to... and you'll edit all of you conf files with vi. - BenStockwell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I honestly can't fathom how hunting through the web for Windows applications and drivers is easier than using Apt on a Debian system; two commands to update a system, and one command to install an application. Windows Add/Remove programs doesn't even compare to the power of Synaptic.
- Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1From a server perspective? I find Linux way easier to manage.
From a desktop perspective? Linux is a bitch compared to Windows.
Before flaming me for being an uneducated Windows user who doesn't know what he's talking about, know that I've had one or more dedicated linux servers for several years now, and spent 8 months using Debian as my primary desktop OS at work 40 hours a week.
On the server side, I like how easy it is to install and configure stuff. Run up2date to install, edit some config files, and go. This is way easier than messing about with crazy ActiveDirectory stuff on Windows servers, or the annoying config interface for IIS.
On the desktop side, drivers are super annoying to handle on Linux (Nobody should ever have to edit an X11 config file, there is no good reason that it should be required), and I want things to "just work". The lack of a third-party installation solution like InstallShield is also annoying. Sure, up2date or yum (or apt-get, etc) is great for supported packages, but what happens when you want to install something that isn't supported? The sad part is that once Wine is set up, it is easier to install Windows software ON Linux than it is to install Linux software on Linux. - mdweaver7485, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Two points, as a general desktop usage goes Windows is easier to manage overall, however there are somethings in Linux that completely smokes Microsoft at specifically the power of the terminal apps. APT, YUM, Portage all trump windows update as far as managing updates, but I tend to use my computer through a desktop environment and at least the desktop environments I've used are far less manageable the the Windows Explorer or OSX, one major setback is in the customization of the Application launchers, it could be ignorance on my part but OSX and Windows allow drag and drop editing of the Launchers (Dock, Start Menu) KDE and Gnome as far as I've experienced do not.
On the server end I cant say Im nearly as familiar for the enterprise as I am with windows, I know there is Open LDAP and Samba, but as was said before no group policy, which really is just a front end to a buch of configuration "scripts" if someone were to right a front end and series of scripts for linux that could perform this functionality and hook into LDAP and Samba well then I'd say that linux as far as desktop management goes is right up there with Windows. Once a groupware server with calendaring and mail ties into LDAP and can be managed via policy then we have a winner.
It seems to me the Linux Platform pushes configurability over managability, Windows pushes managability over security. Apple though not included in the study, pushes ease of use for the end users and is not yet an enterprise networking platform. - crash70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I run a 2000 node Windows network by day and do web hosting on RedHat/CentOS on the side. Windows is definitely easier to manage on any large scale. Case in point...I built a RHEL/Horde Imp mail server which performs backend authentication through our Windows ADS (no local users on Linux). No other Windows admins will touch the thing. I like Linux, but it's just not as easy.
- Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ automagically
Try downloading and running the EasyUbuntu script if you want to view videos on Ubuntu. You can even watch WMV files if you want. - iaskedTGT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It is not "tougher" it just takes a different approach.
Your enemy might become your friend,
if you allow him to be who he is. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0EasyUbuntu changed the firefox icon, but the other stuff didn't work.
- Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0One more comment.
I find it interesting how many people rag on Linux when they obviously haven't spent the time to understand how to use it. I guess this reaction is pretty common, really. It seems to be a standard human response to something that you're not good at; make it look like you think the task beyond you is stupid and beneath contempt. "Why would any moron what to use/do that?" A response like this allows us to save face.
Personally, I think a better response would be to ask for help until you are able to master whatever you currently aren't good at; but that may just be me.
With regards to Linux, if somebody spent the time to become equally proficient in both Windows and Linux, and then had some concrete examples of where Linux fails as an operating system (not fails to be Windows since that is irrelevant), then I would be more inclined to listen to their opinions and conclusions. - asg1290, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Windows in the server space is NOT easier to manage than linux if you know what you are doing. Where I work it takes 10 people to manage all the Windows servers beacuse they have way more problems whereas I can manage 3 times as many Linux servers by myself. I have fully automated installs and configurations using Kickstart and Cfengine and it is trivial to provision a server and to keep them patched. I will agree using the GUI to manage a Linux Workstation is not as smooth as Windows but once a Linux box is set up you can forget about it, no defrags, no malware/viruses, MS patches going crazy, etc.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0
Windows is easier to manage SMALL numbers of systems.
Linix(and UNIX) is easier to manage LARGE number of systems.
My guess is that anyone who says windows is easier has a)only managed a small number of windows systems, and b)has not had the opportunity to manage large numbers of both. - Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ mdweaver7485
I don't know exactly what you are looking for when you say "Client Management". What I think of when I hear that though is something like Nagios. I'll leave the studying of that up to you though. - foxhoundadmin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I love Linux, but it's still not there yet."
i've been using linux for years now, and i don't think it'll EVER be there. MAYBE if the big companies get into it, then who knows? - DyceFreak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Click click click is a bit different than logging into root and type type type...
- Ace2005, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Linux is no tougher to manage than Windows"
Well my 14 year old sister could have told you that, she runs, Debian SID - Moocat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>>"So, that's like saying Windows is dumb because you can download and install different web browsers on it. Package managers are just software tools. You can pick a choose whatever you want. Also, by default each distribution has pre-installed and configured its preferred package management system; all of which are more robust and easier to use than the Windows installation mechanism. Personally, I think Apple has the best installers, but that's just me."
Windows IS dumb, that's why I use it, so I can get what I need installed on my machine and concentrate on development, not setup. Better installers out there? Yes, but I'm concentrating on the fact Windows has one pre-installed and it's pretty much the default for every single program useable on the system. Those that don't use it, come with their own which is built off the same platform. Linux installation of the OS is rather easy now, however any programs you get AFTER that tend to be quite a PITA. As an example, it was only about 4 months ago I was installing some graphics drivers, which told me I had to install from command line, that's fine, so I exited the shell and went to command line, typed in the proper command, got to the package, which then proceeded to get to the installation, at which point I was missing "packages"...not fun.
>>"The only way to go in my opinion." (command line)
That's ok with you, and many other people, but command line is not something you can just pull out of thin air. I've met many people who can use Linux just fine, just as well as a versed Windows user, but getting to that point takes far more time (sometimes upwards of a year) and research than Windows (see Windows is Dumb, and that's why I like it above).
>>"That is quite subjective. Let's say you want to rename all of your .jpeg files to .jpg. Which is easier? Slowly double-clicking each one of them and changing the extension, or typing a one line command at the prompt? (The right answer is the prompt). GUIs are great, but there are just some things they aren't good at."
That's not true, and I believe I can back that up. Take any user and give them a command line. Now give another equally skilled user a windows environment. I GURANTEE the person using the windows environment is going to be able to rename all those extensions faster than someone stuck with a command line. The fact is, you NEED to do research on Linux before you even attempt getting it. My computer illiterate parents can install programs, make folders, add things to their desktop, play music/games on the same day they get a new windows computer. The only thing they could do on Linux is use pre-installed programs, downloading packages and finding installers doesn't even enter their frame of mind. You might think it's "easy" to do such things, but you have to take into account most people wouldn't even know that they need these things. They'd see "package not found" and reformat to windows (if they could do that :p). While I'm not saying Windows is perfect, far from it, it's far more user friendly that Linux ever was.
>>"Or run apt or portage and not worry about it."
A prime example, I have no idea what you're talking about. In a windows environment, I wouldn't need to know what the heck you're talking about. A non-development savvy user would not have a clue to figure out what they need (and even some savy ones). (I googled them now :-)
>>"Just because you don't know how to do something doesn't mean that it is wrong, poorly designed, or unintuitive. Your inability to perform this action is a reflection on you, not on Linux."
Yes, yes it does reflect on design. Not necesarily "poor" design, what I'm talking about is "ease of use" design, which is what my whole arguement was about. And Linux fails poorly on that case as above arguements theorize/exampled.
>>"Every OS fails your expectations using that criteria. Now, if you'd like to limit it to every software package supported on a given platform, then that day is already here."
Windows seems to do it just fine. I haven't had to use command line since the days of DOS, what version are you talking about?
My bottom line is Linux is a well driven platform for Linux users. Not Windows users and most certainly not "end-users" (read computer illiterate/dumb terminal users). Linux does what it does very well, allowing high flexibility in environment customization, multiple levels of permissions, managing large groups of networks and some development. Windows does what it does well, single user manipulation, ease of use installations, platform testing, dumb terminals, playing games/media, company users and some development.
Linux may be all well and good for the "admin" side of the house, but Windows is leaps and bounds ahead in the "user" side. - mdweaver7485, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ Comments who say group policy is doable in Linux. Show me how, and show me proof that the end users wont know the difference. For extra brownie points, cross platform management, I know Windows doesn't do this but if Linux could manage any client, regardless of operating system or desktop environment, well I would take a lot of notice at that. If any enterprising Digger wants to make a distro that would be the super ultimate coolness, a Linux Client Management Server would be super awesome. Otherwise I have to agree with those who say that Linux only works to manage clients when used in conjunction with thin clients.
- Moocat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0BTW, when I say "some development" I found Linux to be slightly easier to develop some regular desktop apps (C, C++) while Windows was easier to do web apps in.
- mercnboy3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That's like a Pizza H ut study of whether Pizza tastes better or tacos...
No digg - sailor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If you knew nothing about windows and nothing about linux we would not be having this discussion.
It is not harder, it is just different. Linux smokes windows in many areas...I run WinXP, FC4, Suse and Kanotix on desktop and laptop...guess which one I have had to reinstall the most? (right, windows). Which one continually gets infected with spyware, adware and the like? (right, windows).
Dependancies are a problem at times but I have never not be able to install anything I want. Nvidia is one the few vendors to make drivers for linux. The comment about install the drivers from commandline is true, I have had to do it myself. It isn't hard if you know how (launch text browser lynx, navigate to nvidia DL driver and install. Unacceptable??? Could you do that in windows if your precious gui failed? (right, you couldn't).
The only OS I have lost data with is windows, that is unacceptable. SP2 cause massive meltdown and reinstall.(lucky I have linux dual booted to grab my backups).
Windows people you really need to look a little closer at the situation. If linux grows and becomes accepted by more and more users it will mean a couple things to you...cheaper windows and a more stable and secure windows. Everybody can win here, but some of us just try a little harder..:p - zoop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Group Policy? Who the hell uses that legacy crap? I manage my systems from ONE browser based interface and I have Windows (few and far between), NetWare, AND Linux. One simple interface to manage them all and the M$ crap that is shoved down my throat is FAR harder to manage...primarily due to the 20 freaking interfaces I have to use.
You are an idiot if you think that GP is the "bomb"...manage by container is FAR better. - infra172, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Linux is an absolute piece of *****. To do anything requires you to research and then type in a complicated series of console commands. Things work inconsistently and setting up hardware is a bitch.
- slippery, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Linux _servers_ are absolutely easier to manage than Windows servers. Linux _desktops_ are harder.
I manage both and Linux servers can be easily configured/managed from an SSH shell, not so Windows. It's also a lot easier to patch without rebooting, no fear of viruses, no hassles with backup software that can't restore the registry or can't backup the databases.
Linux desktops on the other hand are harder _unless_ you are using diskless workstations with something like LTSP, which is the way linux/unix was designed to work. In any case, printing in Linux sux for a variety of reasons.
The article doesn't say whether the study was about servers or desktops. My guess is it was about servers. Digg. - shiftless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Good luck with finding affordable training... There are so many inept people out there.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 136 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is