Re: [TCLUG:16719] The NVidia license

[<Nick.T.Reinking@supervalu.com>]

Okay, Microsoft haters, it's time for Nick's non-biased
review of where we stand with Linux vs. Windows (2000).


Performance ->

Linux is no doubt fast on the CLI, but the bloat of X slows
it down in a GUI environment.  Windows's GUI is slow,
but not as slow as X.

Result: Tie (Windows for GUI desktop, Linux for CLI server)

----------------------

Stability -->

While traditional thought would side with Linux on this one,
especially on Win9x, those who have run Windows 2000
will know that it is just as stable as Linux.  Its biggest cause
of instability is *still* poor quality video card drivers, and off
brand chipsets.  Linux is a bit different - most of the mainstream
video cards are pretty stable under X, and I've never had
chipset support be an issue under Linux (although sometimes
it is a bit slower because it doesn't optimize for some chipsets).

Result: Linux, by a little bit.  However, running Windows 2000 with
Microsoft certified drivers is just as stable as Linux.

----------------------

Configurability -->

I don't think there is even a question here.  In the hands of an advanced
user, you can make your computer do basically anything you want
with Linux.  Windows has very little configurability, although some
companies sell products that you can use to make some pretty
decent modification (like WindowBlinds)

Result:  Linux

----------------------

Ease of use -->

Well, that same configurability that makes Linux so powerful
in the hands of the advanced user *really* hurts it here.  Windows
applications have a fairly consistant look and feel to themselves.
If someone is having problems with something on their Windows
box, I can sit down and usually fix it right away.  With Linux, I may
be able to fix a WindowMaker problem, or an Enlightenment
problem, but I would probably be just as confused as they are
if it was running E on Gnome, or KDE, or pwm, or any of the myriad
of styles that I've never seen before.  Additionally, Windows applications
tend to work better together.  Copy-and-paste usually always works
perfectly on Windows, but is basically text-only, or in-application for
Linux, and that hurts it a lot.

Result: Windows is still much easier - applications just aren't
consistant in Linux.  That's really going to hurt people trying to learn it.

----------------------

Resource requirements -->

Sure, Linux only "requires" 8MB of memory, but if you're going to be
running X, you'll want at least 128MB.  The same can be said of
Windows 2000.  128, at least.

Result: Tie, unless you only run Linux in CLI mode.

---------------------

Price -->

Well, for the advanced user, Linux is much cheaper (free), but for the
beginning user, hooking themselves up to say, Corel Linux Deluxe,
will cost them almost as much as a Windows upgrade.  But still it isn't
nearly as much.

Result: Linux, but the margin is shrinking.

--------------------

Security -->

This is interesting.  Both Windows 2000 and Linux *can* be set up to be
very secure.  However, neither one are secure "by default".  Break-ins
to Linux boxes are far more common than Windows 2000 boxes (because
there are so many newbies setting up Linux boxes), but the Windows 2000
break-ins tend to be a bit more publicitized (ie on the sensationalist /.)

Result: Both suck, look at OpenBSD.

--------------------

"Open Sourceness"

Linux also has the advantage of being open source.  For TCLUGers, that's
real nice.  For the end-user, they don't care too much.  They just want 
software
that doesn't suck.  And as far as software-that-doesn't-suck goes, neither OS
is too great.  Linux has some great server-software that doesn't suck, and NT
has some great client software that doesn't suck.  OSS is the way to go, but
I think that commercial software and OSS should be around.  However, we're
starting to see a lot of GPL software for Windows - so who knows?

Result: Linux

--------------------

Productivity -->

I think Windows wins out here, if just for the fact that Office 2000 is the 
still the
best office suite out there.  Other OSS/commercial ones are out there, but 
they're
not at Office caliber, yet.  Perhaps in 5, 6 years.  But we'll probably have 
Office
for Linux by then, so the competition should be really fierce.

Result: Windows (if just for Office)

--------------------

"Grandma factor" -->

Well, normally, I'd say Macintosh here.  But that's not what we are comparing.
I'd have to say that I would rather give my grandma a Windows box than a
Linux box at this point.  She would probably just want to check her e-mail and
surf the web anyway, and I wouldn't want to have to call up my grandmother
and explain to her how to delete the .lock file every time that Netscape 
crashes.
And I certainly don't want to listen to her complain about how the fonts are 
too
small for her non-20/20 eyes to read.

Result: Windows

------------------

Hardware support -->

Hmm, Windows tends to support more hardware, but Linux tends to support
the hardware better.  If you want your DVD drive, and your HDTV WinTV card
to work, you'd better not be running Windows.  However, on a packed machine,
sometimes Windows has problems with IRQs, etc.  But that's getting better.

Result: Tie

-------------------

Web browser -->

I don't think there's any argument out there that Windows has the better web 
browser.
Be it IE5 (which is great) or NS4.72 (why would you run this on Windows with 
IE5 around?),
both are better.  Maybe when Mozilla gets there, but it ain't there yet.

Result: Windows

-------------------

Whew!  There you have it!

Feel free to add anything you like.

Nick Reinking