The Pros and Cons of Linux, Windows, and OSX.
By Mike on Apr 6, 2008 in Featured, Linux, OSX, Windows
From time to time I am asked which operating system is the best in my opinion. This is a tough question to answer as there is no definitive answer. All your choices have their technical merits but, you really shouldn’t select an operating system based solely on its technical merits. You should instead select one that best suits your usage case. To that end I have done my best to summarize the pros and cons of each operating system from the point of view of the average end user. This overview is intended to be part of a larger series of articles I am working on to help you determine which is the best computer for you. A question I get asked a lot more often.
Lets address your operating system choices in order of market share, just to be objective.
First we have Windows XP. It’s about everything and nothing.
What about Windows Vista? Stay away from Vista. But isn’t Vista the latest and greatest from Microsoft? Latest, true. Greatest, no.
There are two major reason to stay away from Vista. One, corporate America has pretty much passed on this operating systems due to software incompatibilities, cost, and lack of benefit. Second, a major lack off legacy hardware support. What business wants to buy a new computer for everyone just for a fancier interface and find out that they have to replace everything else, printers, digital cameras, scanners, just to make it all work together again? For that matter, why would you? Unless you don’t have any legacy hardware or software, just stay away.
If you need proof of all these problems, all you have to do is look at Microsoft’s support policy for Windows XP. Windows XP was suppose to reach end of life in the middle of 2007. Since then, due to the backlash from vendors and consumer problems, that support has been extend to June of 2008. Now the rumor is that support will be extended, again, to 2010. Why 2010? That’s when Microsoft plans to release its next version of Windows.
So why use Windows XP? Well Windows XP is still the most widely supported operating system and dare I say it, the most stable product in the Windows family. You’ll never have a problem finding hardware, software, or support for a Windows XP system. Windows XP also still has the most support for running your custom business applications. The last reason to select XP over other alternatives is gaming. If gaming is a major consideration you are practically locked into choosing Windows XP.
So, at this point, you are probably saying to yourself that Windows XP is for you but, hold on, being the biggest has its dark side. For one, Windows is targeted for malware more than the other operating systems. Due to the architecture of Windows, when that malware gets into your system, it can do more damage and be harder to remove than other systems. Windows is general more unstable than its counterparts. I’d love to lay the blame for this entirely at Microsoft’s feet but, that would be unfair. The sheer magnitude of configurations options means that there really can’t be rigorous quality of assurance testing for every scenario that might come up and they can’t be blamed for that. What they can be blamed for is continuing an architecture that allows the failure of one system to affect the rest of the system.
An example of Windows inherent instability might be when you accidentally unplug your camera, mouse, printer, whatever, from you computer while it is in use. Instead of just the programs using that device locking up, your whole computer locks up and needs to be rebooted. We have all had this experience. We also all blame Microsoft solely for the problem. That isn’t exactly fair. The root cause of the lockup was the device driver, written by the manufacturer, being unable to handle this unexpected event. Where Microsoft shares the blame is not being able to keep this single, poorly written, device driver from affecting the whole system.
If I made this same mistake in Linux, and I have, I would probably just lose the ability for the application I was using to talk to the device I had disconnected. It is a very rare event that the whole system would lock up. In any case, to fix it, all I would have to do is reconnect the device and restart the application. Don’t get me wrong. This isn’t an example of better drivers being written for Linux. If, in this example, the driver was better than its Windows counterpart then my application wouldn’t need to be restarted. It is an example of the underlying architecture of Linux being able to handle this unexpected event better than Windows.
Pro’s
- More then 80% of the desktop computers in the world run some sort of Windows operating system.
- You won’t have any trouble finding hardware and drivers.
- You won’t have any problems finding support.
- Most widely supported operating system for games.
- Large shareware and freeware application library.
Con’s
- The most prone operating system for spyware and virus applications.
- You are going to need support.
- General instability due to the shear number of possible configurations.
- Poor security.
- Limited access to the library of free open source software.
Second, we have Apple and its OSX operating system. It’s about the content baby.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit, that I am a recent Apple convert. After using Microsoft Windows since Windows 286, just over 20 years, both personally and professionally, I’ve had enough. Maybe I should do one of those switch commercials?
For most of Apple’s history there were two major reasons to stick with Windows over Apple. Hardware and software choices. Since Apple moved to Intel based system a few years back both of those reasons have been negated.
From Wikipedia:
Since Mac OS X is based on UNIX, most software packages written for BSD or Linux can be recompiled to run on it. Projects such as Fink, MacPorts and pkgsrc provide pre-compiled or pre-formatted packages. Since version 10.3, Mac OS X has included X11.app, Apple’s version of the X Window System graphical interface for Unix applications, as an optional component during installation.[13] Up to and including Mac OS X v10.4 (Tiger), Apple’s implementation was based on the X11 Licensed XFree86 4.3 and X11R6.6. All bundled versions of X11 feature a window manager which is similar to the Mac OS X look-and-feel and has fairly good integration with Mac OS X, also using the native Quartz rendering system. Earlier versions of Mac OS X (in which X11 has not been bundled) can also run X11 applications using XDarwin.
So with OSX you have the entire open source catalog of software open to you plus the native OSX software library. Certainly, lack of software choice is no longer a problem.
The second reason, a lack of hardware support, has pretty much gone away with the introduction of common hardware interfaces such as USB and firewire. It use to be that hardware, such as scanners and digital cameras, all had different hardware interfaces, such as serial and SCSI connections, that required the manufacture to write a driver specifically for for each operating system. Since the introduction of common standards, like USB, the operating system vendor can now write a common driver for all these devices.
An example of this would be my first digital camera which had a serial interface and thus would only work in Windows. My second digital camera connected to my computer using USB. The camera presented itself to the computer as a USB hard drive, which every operating can use. Even though I have upgraded my camera several time since then, that old camera still works with my new Apple Macbook Pro laptop.
Of course you can still find Windows only hardware but, it is getting harder. If you bought your scanner, camera, camcorder, or printer in the last few years there is no technical reason not to consider Apple OSX.
So with the technical reason out of the way, why would you want to consider OSX over Microsoft Windows?
First, it’s just easier to use. Of course this is a subjective statement so I suggest you visit an Apple store and try it for yourself.
Two, it is more stable. Again that is a subjective statement as well but, it has been my experience and the experience of people who bought Apple systems based on my recommendations, that over all, they are having less support issues. I can personally state that these individuals don’t come to me with questions about how to fix their systems anymore. If they do ask me a question, it is more likely to be related to how to do something new like, how do I create a DVD of my kids using iMovie.
The reasons for this are probably two fold. One, Apple has a higher degree of control over the hardware design of its systems leading to a generally more stable product. Two, OSX’s UNIX base (which has been under development a lot longer than Windows) and UNIX security model lead to a much more stable operating system. You won’t have the virus and spyware problems you are probably use to by now on Windows.
Third, Apple’s core strength is content creation. Mostly people use a computer to create something else not just to play with the the computer itself. This is where Apple and OSX excel. In general, Apple systems come out of the box with more features and programs for creating content than any other system. There is a reason why most bands use Pro Tools on OSX to create their music, why every print application is created with Adobe Photoshop and Indesign on OSX, and why a lot of video is produced with Final Cut on OSX. Apple’s OSX just does a better job of helping to create and manage content.
Pro’s
- Easier to use for the non technical.
- Content creation is its strength.
- More secure than Windows due to its UNIX base
- More stable than Windows due to Apple’s tighter control over the configuration options and its UNIX base.
- Almost no spyware or virus applications.
- More powerful than Windows due to its UNIX base.
- You have almost complete access to the enormous library of free open source applications.
Con’s
- More expensive upfront than other choices. Some would say this is offset by less maintenance required over the life of the system.
- Less support. You have to goto Apple for all your hardware problems.
- Less hardware choices than Windows. For your average user this isn’t much of a problem. All the common hardware types will work.
- More complex than Windows due to its UNIX base. This really isn’t a major con because OSX does a great job of hiding this complexity from the end user.
Third we have Linux. It’s all about choice man.
I know what you are thinking. Isn’t Linux that command line operating system my 15 year old and the technical support people at work rave about? That’s way too much of a learning curve for me. Well, that is true but, Linux also is that user friendly cable box under your T.V., that kiosk in the mall that tells you where the GAP is, and the operating system that runs your TomTom GPS navigation system in your car. Odds are you are already using Linux and don’t even know it.
For a long time Linux has had a two faced image problem. At one end you have the appliance like consumer gadget market that is using Linux to make extremely easy to use consumer electronics like your Tivo or TomTom. On the other end you have the majority of the world’s top ten super computers that also run Linux. It is this end that has gotten most of the main stream media attention over the years.
Linux still has room in the middle of these two extremes for you. Even here there are two ends of spectrum. At the low end, you have systems like the Asus EeePC which, by default, runs a restricted version of Linux that even your grandmother can use. At the other end you have the web server that served you this page. You also have every option in between.
Typically you are going to want a Linux distribution (of which there are many) that approximates the ease of use of Windows and OSX. For the last couple of years the most popular choice has been Ubuntu. Ubuntu’s main focus, since its inception, has been to make Linux easier to use for the masses and I’d have to say, they have done a great job. If you have ever used a computer before then it won’t take you very long to get up to speed in Ubuntu. One of the great advantages of Linux over Windows or OSX has been its lower hardware requirements. If your current computer is less then five years old then I can pretty much guarantee that it will run Linux. Maybe not with all the fancy graphic options but, it will be usable.
Another great advantage of Linux is that you can try it on any hardware without actually installing it by using a live CD. With a live CD, you can run Linux on your current computer just by booting off the CD. The operating system is loaded into memory and run off the CD and it won’t affect anything else on your system. When you are done testing, you simply take the CD out of your drive and reboot. Go get the Ubuntu Live CD here and check it out. Of course, Ubuntu isn’t your only choice. Google Linux Live CD and check out the other options.
Pros
- Runs on just about any hardware. It is a misnomer that Linux lacks the driver support of Windows and OSX. Linux actually has the broadest driver support of any system. I don’t see Windows running on your TomTom. What is true, is that the latest and greatest hardware doesn’t come to Linux first if the manufacture choose not write Linux drivers. For most things this isn’t a problem for the same reason it isn’t a problem for OSX. Just be aware of the issue before running out to buy the latest add on.
- More options than any other system. This is a pro and a con. If you want to change anything in Linux you can. The only limiting factor is your desire to figure out how.
- Way more secure than Windows XP and even OSX.
- Everything is free. Although please donate a little something to your favorite projects.
- If you choose to, you can always be on the cutting edge of computer science. All the new ideas in development on college campuses across the world are tried on Linux first and then the best of those filter down to Apple and Windows but, what’s best is subjective so Linux leaves you with a choice, while Apple and Windows limit you.
- Full access to the free open source library of software. Great full featured, compatible, and free replacements for your proprietary software.
- Linux management, for example patch management, is much easier. Typical one command or wizard has to be invoked in order to update everything vs. Windows where you have to get OS patches from Microsoft and third party patches from each individual vendor.
Cons
- The latest and greatest hardware is typically slower to reach Linux.
- The shear number of options can be daunting to a non-technical user. Although, like OSX, the distribution you select will determine the level of complexity presented or hidden from the end user. For instance, my mom would have no problem using Ubuntu but, only the uber techies among us would opt for the Gentoo Linux distribution.
- Limited support for proprietary applications. Although you can use Microsoft Office for Windows on Linux by using an open source version of the Windows application programing interface called WINE, I wouldn’t recommend it for the non-technical user. Instead use Open Office, which comes with the Ubuntu distribution, for creating documents compatible with Microsoft Office.
- Limited vendor support. This is getting better. Dell now offers systems with Ubuntu pre-installed and those sub $300 Walmart PC’s that they couldn’t keep in the stores were from Everex. As for software support, even though this is under cons, I can’t really say this is a bad thing. In 20 years Microsoft has never answered a question when I have bothered to call them. I may spend hours searching their knowledge base to find an answer to my question. On the other hand, Linux has a massive community of people willing to help. A quick search of the Ubuntu forums will generally reveal an answer, and if not, then a quick post to the forum normally gets a response.
Basically, for all its pros and cons, Linux comes down to choice. If you can think it, you can probably do it.
So which OS is the best?
Like I said at the beginning of this article it depends on your usage. If you want to be compatible with the office and play games, it is Windows. If you do nothing but content creation all day long, want general compatibility with the office, or are a less technical user, than it is OSX. Finally, if you have a budget, need both a restricted system for one user and a powerful system for another but, it has to be the same computer, than it is Linux.
Each one has it best use. I’m a perfect example. I wrote and developed this web site on OSX. I have a Mac Mini in my bedroom that I used to watch movies. I also have my entire home automation system running on OSX.
Then there is Linux. I have a Linux based VOIP (Voice Over IP, think vonage) server running my home phone, a Linux based DVR recording my T.V. and a Linux based file server to back it all up.
Finally, there is Windows. Well, I use Windows at work. I have a XBox for video games.
Easy enough?
Popularity: 32% [?]
Steve | Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
I wonder what Windows’ market share would be if, when you bought a computer, you were told “That’s the price with Linux. Windows will cost you another fifty bucks.” Microsoft is still reaping the benefits of its early predatory license agreement, under which any manufacturer who wanted to preinstall Windows had to agree to sell only Windows boxes. That has been ruled illegal, which is why you can now order a Dell system with Ubuntu, but that’s where Microsoft’s lock on the consumer PC market came from.
Mike | Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
I couldn’t agree more. Hopefully the current trend of build once run everywhere continues. That way software will be able to run on any OS you choose and Microsoft will loose it’s grip.
Java was a nice first attempt at this. I really like Adobe’s Flex/Air project. Who know about Microsoft Sliverlight.
Mike
fred | Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
Not too bad, you present some good points. There is one quibble- Windows does not run on 90% of the world’s computers. Not even 90% of desktops. It’s hard to get honest numbers, let alone accurate ones, but I’ll bet my granny’s favorite bloomers that Mac + Linux account for over 10% of desktops. Linux and Unix dominate in the server room, from single-machine workgroup servers to clusters, mainframes, and distributed computing. Linux and other free Unixes, and specialized proprietary operating systems dominate on networking gear and other embedded devices. I’m pleased you mentioned the embedded space, since most “tech journalists” can’t see beyond their own computers.
Tyler | Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
Sorry but this was not a very insightful article. Maybe I was just having a hard time ignoring the grammatical errors…
martin jasny | Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
Windows 2000 was the most stable Windows. Windows XP is not. It crashes more. Besides, it is more bloated and the activation is a nuisance. But many of the current hardware and software do not support Windows 2000 any more.
Mac OSX is excellent software but I have had some bad experience with the quality of the laptops. I do not like the glossy monitors, either.
Linux would be fine if you could install it easily. I have tried 6 live CDs (Knoppix 5.1.1, Mepis 7,Ubuntu 6, Kubuntu 6, Debian 4.0 etch and CentOS) on my new Dell Optiplex 330 and ALL have failed. Most of them did not even get past the boot process. Actually, this is a worse result than I had 4 years ago. At that time I had only Knoppix 3.4 and I could install it on 3 different machines.
So it looks like a bad choice.
Jarrod | Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
Since we’re pointing out corrections…
It used to be…
In the interest of full disclosure…
Now with that aside, I must say that this appears to be one of the more well thought out and objective comparisons between operating systems. The Apple bias shows a little bit, but wasn’t unbearable. I think overall the weighing of the pros and cons was done fairly.
admin | Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
Where would I be without you guys? I’ll admit I suck at proof reading. More so when it is this long. Thanks for the opinions and corrections. Its nice to have help.
I’ve never had a problem installing Ubuntu on any Dell system with the exception of two items. One, the resolution is never detected correctly on laptops. Two, the built in memory card readers never work.
Thanks again.
P.S. I told the team here they shouldn’t let the engineer be the editor….
admin | Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
I’ll agree that Windows 2000 was the best Microsoft operating system in terms of stability. Again that is subjective but it was my experience.
This article was written to be passed on to your non technical friends. I never meant for it to get picked up by the tech community at large.
I’m guessing most of you came from linuxtoday.com judging from the server logs.
rob ukak enderle | Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
I had the baby sleeping in my arms and looking for things to read, but I have to say that I came into this article with “Oh not another comparative article between the OS”. I was prepared to skim over and then read about Britney and Paris.
And you know what?
Thoroughly enjoyed it.
I didnt learn anything from it but I enjoyed it because its something I can give to friends who arent technically versed.
In this genre, it is definitely among the better written ones.
I moved from kUbuntu to PCLinuxOS (I love the versatility of KDE and Windows switchers prefer it) as the distro I recommend and install for friends/family (Im not doing the family tech support thing for WIndows always which consists of the same time consuming thing) but still stay with xUbuntu for people who have old computers (my dad’s 8 year old P3-700 Thinkpad purrs running X) but this current generation of distros is the first one that I fell confident is good enough for the grandparents (I cant wait for KDE 4 which Ive tested)
My dad runs his Beryl boosted laptop and is the envy of all his friends who see it and his transition from Windows has been smooth since he was running FF2, OO, VLC, Skype and a few others beforehand.
My mother who is in her seventies never touched a computer before we got her one this year. She ONLY knows Gnu/Linux and doesnt understand what these virus scares are all about.
Btw, its not condescending to use people from a non-technical generation as examples of ease of use but after teaching her and another two dozens retirees at residence around from our place (they received donated used computers where only was was less than 4 year old) how to use the penguin, I think the ease of use issue is now as moot as the command line one or even your learning curve comment (your one mistake).
My mom installed by herself EVERY game in the repositories on her computer which tells me that installing programs in PCLinuxOS is pretty darned easy.
Our 4 home machines are all dual boots (our Mac is a triple boot that is only used to verify platform variations) because of games and ‘the one app’, but most of our day to day use is Linux only. My 6 year old knows Linux as ‘the computer’ and Windows as the place you go to play NHL2007.
Robert Pogson | Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
“More complex than Windows due to it’s UNIX base. This really isn’t a major con because OSX does a great job of hiding this complexity from the end user.”
The first UNIX OS was written in six months by one or two guys. It was a simpler OS than any Windows. M$ has made their OS incredibly complex to bring us useless features which malware exploits. Spaghetti code like Windows is impossible to maintain which is why it has so many bugs and Longhorn never happened. GNU/Linux, Mac OS, and other UNICES on the other hand are modular and a bug in one place does not affect other parts. This is a huge simplification which makes the whole thing easy to maintain. You only have to deal with a small part of it to fix or to add anything.
Anish | Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
I would still say that it depends on your use, you can pickup anything that gets the work done, for my personal work Linux does great I don’t have to use Windows, but for office due to some applications windows is needed.
It’s purely choice and preference on personal front but on business front its better to stick to your company standards rather then sneaking new stuff which might not be liked.
Anish
admin | Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
Robert. I know the architecture of UNIX is simpler then windows for the various reasons you pointed out.
The complexity comment was from your average windows user’s perspective. From that perspective it is more complex and feared. I was trying to convince the typical end user that this is nothing to be worried about.
Rhonald Moses | Apr 9, 2008 | Reply
Hi, I can’t understand what you people are bragging about command line in linux. I am using gnu/linux full time as my prime personal choice for more than 2 years and unless I had some serious issues, i never had to use command line at all. (Well, since my pref goes for command line, sometimes I use it over the gui tools).
anyway, i liked the article though.
check out a full blown gnu/linux desktop (ubuntu, opensuse, fedora or pclinuxos) and then write something. Sure some people have hardware compatibility and they have to use the command line.
Look at the bright spot: in windows you have no way of making something work if the gui has some problem due to some crappy hardware drivers. In gnu/linux you have more than one option
h_os_ed | Apr 9, 2008 | Reply
Never had much of a problem installing any Linux distro. Old Slackware 2.0 was a booger, but it only had to compete with windows 95. It is true that there is fairly good driver support, but excellent driver support. Uhhh not so much. Just ask the poor user who has to narfle the garfle to get a broadcom wifi to connect. So even though the install generally goes well, you better expect to spend some time getting your system up to snuff. OS X really pisses me off. Apple people were always an arrogant lot, but the switch to BSD based unix was free manna from heaven for Apple. Take take take and take some more, but give back damn little. I tried out one of the TinyXP torrents and was amazed by the speed of XP. Small and fast. Hmmm, just like an os should be.
Caleb Cushing | Apr 9, 2008 | Reply
perhaps you should have said simpler than windows, although quite different, and may seem more difficult at first.
I still can’t get over how somethings are impossible in windows because of its non unix design. like a separate /home partition.
Istvan | Apr 9, 2008 | Reply
You should try some newer editions of these distros. Ubuntu 8.04 will be released next week.
Rip Linton | Apr 9, 2008 | Reply
Very nicely done article.
I have been telling people for years, Gnu/Linux is ready for most users. It is not for everyone, no operating system or hardware platform is. But, for most people, the tools available in a modern Gnu/Linux distribution can provide a great user experience.
I like seeing articles geared toward SOHO and individual users. Businesses have issues that have to be considered that most home users do not have to deal with. I find that most business desktop users can be switched to FOSS operating systems and applications easily. Things like custom applications, vertical applications and file formats are concerns that must be addressed in the planning stages. But, they are not things that have never been issues before or that will not be issues in the future. Even staying with the Microsoft platform does not keep these items from coming up.
For home users, the reasons to change outweigh the reasons not to quickly. Just having the huge base of quality programs available with a simple install makes Gnu/Linux worth the change.
I also agree that for some hardware, drivers can be a concern. The two items that are mentioned most often, wireless and video capture, are getting better every day. I believe that the manufacturers will get more involved in the driver issues as more people switch. I also expect that we will see many additional application packages being ported to Gnu/Linux platforms.
I will add this to the list of articles that I point people to when they are interested in Linux.
Rip
admin | Apr 9, 2008 | Reply
Thanks for the comment Rip.
I agree that if you are setting up your own network for your home or small business it is Linux all the way.
In my consulting gigs (side jobs to my day job as a network engineer) I always use GNU/Linux in some form. The cost benefits alone demand it.
I’m always pleasantly surprised that I always get positive comments, when I am done, about the ease of use. Granted, in these small business environments it is much easier to convince the base to change.
I think in the, larger, corporate environment Linux has to overcome an entrenched mindset. Its more of a political problem then a technical one. A problem that we are slowly but surely winning.
Mike
Karl O. Pinc | Apr 9, 2008 | Reply
I think you missed a major Linux “Pro” point. when you use a Linux distro all the system’s integration is done for you. Forever. To some extent this has always been true of Macs as well, no running hither and yon for drivers with Macs, and the Mac users have always known how important this is. But with Macs you’ve always had to go to 3rd parties for applications, which sometimes break. Not so with Linux.
There are a number of significant knock-on benefits to having all the system integration work done for you. Below is a pre-written comment I’ve posted elsewhere that explains further:
The big advantage of Linux, when properly administered, is that it just keeps running. Over years. Patches and upgrades happen painlessly. Which means the Linux user has the latest software continuously available to them. They don’t have to download drivers. They don’t have to worry that adding new software will break their system. They don’t have to worry about version compatibility or finding new drivers when the system is upgraded or any of the myriad system integration tasks that are required when software comes from more than one source. The Linux distributor takes care of all this so the user does not have to.
Of course, this means sticking with the software supplied by the distributor. And it means choosing a good distribution, one that is successful in it’s system integration. This may mean some sacrifice. It will surely mean changing the way system administration is done. But the rewards are great, a continuously updated modern system that just plain works. These rewards are available only to those who either A) hire professional system administrators
and pay them on an ongoing basis for upgrades and maintenance, or B) ordinary Linux users.
admin | Apr 9, 2008 | Reply
Thanks for the comment Karl.
I added your point to the pros for Linux.
Mike
Barton Phillips | Apr 9, 2008 | Reply
Since I retired I have not booted Windows, don’t need to any more. Linux does everything I ever need. While I was working I had to use Windows because most of my clients wanted there programs to run on Windows. It was hard to get companies to switch even if the IT staff wanted that to happen.
I must admit that I always have two terminal windows open because I do 80% of my computer stuff from the command line, the rest is in the browser. But the average Windows user could easily switch to Linux and never have to use the command line. Modern distributions like Ubuntu are very user friendly and most people would be able to surf the web, do email, use Open Office and never miss Microsoft. Ubuntu is much easier to install than any Windows version has ever been.
Karl O. Pinc | Apr 9, 2008 | Reply
Mike,
You mis-filed the new pro under “cons”.
To remark: It’s not just patch management, although that’s the font from which other benefits spring. You get to run new software, on an ongoing basis. Your system remains stable over time — no slowing down and turning to muck and having to re-install (or throw away and buy something new.) You don’t have to spend time keeping your computer running. It’s ease of maintenance combined with painless upgrades.
The tech press just does not get this point, probably because they never keep a system around and use it over time.
All this comes from having a single supplier, the Linux distro of choice. Venture away from that at your peril. (Something new Linux users are all too likely to do, because that’s they way they’ve always managened their system.) It’s strange that Linux, which springs from myriad sources, can do what every vendor promises but few if any deliver, be the sole software source and the single systems integrator that ensures the system “just works”.
Of course this takes self control on the part of the end-user; they must restrict themselves to their distro’s software. This is the “con” side of the coin.
admin | Apr 9, 2008 | Reply
Thanks Karl. I fixed it.
I totally agree with your point but most newbies I have dealt with won’t install software outside of the repos. That’s mainly reserved for server software in your typical environment.
I do tell my user that if they do that they loose the seamless upgrade and patch feature. More to the point, if they do, then they might have to reinstall software that didn’t come from the repo. A test and verify kind of tip.
Peter | Apr 10, 2008 | Reply
Here’s another pro for Linux:
- no “activation” ncessary, easy to (re-)install
This may not seem like an issue, but in my house (WinXP and Ubuntu), I upgrade hard drives, and recycle computers from one user to another. There are an awful lot of clean installs being done, often without access to any “recovery partition”.
It is expensive to legally re-install WinXP. I need to purchase a new OEM disk at $100+ for each machine, and go through activation. Linux doesn’t require this. I’m not allowed to “transfer” my rights to use WinXP to another machine, even though the original machine is dead and gone. I always have the install disks for Linux, and am encouraged to make as many copies as I want.
Linux is, for my money, as good, or better, than WinXP. It does everything I need to do, and without the restrictions on use added by MS. As WinXP becomes less available, Linux may end up looking like a pretty good alternative to Vista.
Karl O. Pinc | Apr 10, 2008 | Reply
Mike,
I see your point about newbies. There do seem to be 2 classes of newbies, those that have been so traumatized by Microsoft Windows that they’re afraid to do anything, and those with no fear. The former do stick to their distro’s repositories, the latter will install anything from anywhere, often following directions given by complete strangers without regard to consequences.
There seems to be a clear desire for some sort of “universal install” process given the number of projects out there that claim to do just that and the number of posts I read by people who have trouble with Linux. Those with some computer experience assume that getting software from hither and yon is the natural state of affairs. Surely anybody who’s a “Microsoft Windows Power User” thinks so, and why wouldn’t they? Even Mac users, traditionally the most “closed” platform, have always needed 3rd party software. The Linux newbies with confidence, who manage their systems the way they’ve always managed their Microsoft PCs or Macs, are the ones who post and complain that Linux isn’t stable. They’re doing it the hard way.
True, it’s not that hard to install and keep up with 3rd party software but the new Linux user usually has enough else to worry about. And the feedback loop is long. You don’t see the trouble a 3rd party package causes until after a system upgrade, which can be some time later. The consequences can be severe, general system breakage that a newbie can only fix with re-install. What motivates me to write this is that the right advice up-front can make all the difference in the long run, the difference between a successful transition to Linux and failure.
Mark | Apr 11, 2008 | Reply
Interesting article, but it really needs a good proofread. It’s like hacking through the jungle with a machete.
Art | Apr 11, 2008 | Reply
I noticed you missed the recent show that revealed that OSX is actually the most vulnerable of the three platforms, and the only one of the three that fell to a weakness in the OS, it should also be noted that it took under 3 minutes for the vulnerability to be found and used.
The Windows laptop fell to an attack via flash, and the Linux laptop didn’t fall at all.
So if it’s security you want, OSX is the last one you should pick.
admin | Apr 11, 2008 | Reply
Actually OSX fell to a bug in Safari. You are correct that it went down first but the teams had time before the competition to do research.
They found holes in Linux too but, decided the time needed to write the code wasn’t worth it.
The lesson here is nothing is completely secure. Something we already knew but, with a little bit of knowledge, you can stay safe.
Both the flash and safari hacks required you to visit a certain web site. We all know to be careful doing that.
When judging operating system security I tend to take the view of the standalone system that is simply running along without user interaction. If you can hack that then the system to truly broken at a fundamental level.
Seeing that didn’t happen in this competition I don’t think it is really relevant to the security of each OS. What it does do is point out that the security of the applications you choose to run is just as important as anything else. In this case, Safari and Flash are the problems. Not windows, linux, or OSX.
Did anyone every say what level of user access was obtained? Getting root in OSX would be pretty bad. Same goes for getting admin rights in Windows. If both systems were logged in as normal users then the breach isn’t as bad unless privilege escalation was part of the hack.
David | Apr 13, 2008 | Reply
This is a very good article but I have to throw my 2 cents into to this.
Windows XP is basically for the average user, simple, easy, and too the point. While it has some applications for content creation and support for programmers it’s not ‘great’ for either. The main thing XP has going for it is not any specific app or feature, its the fact that every has it. Even I a penguinista as one might say have a XP/Ubuntu dual boot just because while what I can do on Linux is better than on XP there are things like the .NET framework that can’t be emulated…yet
I really agree about OSX. It’s totally content creation and easy of use. But, as a programmer first it lacks a lot of support for all the languages, shells, and various other things i need. Even though I can, I hate compling from source especially when I can just use a package manager. This brings me to my next point, OSX is a unix based system….without a package manager or repositories. Also, as a personal thing I object to OSX because it feels like im paying to use a rebuild of a BSD. In fact, its possible to totally emulate OSX with a good BSD and the right programs.
Finally, we come to Linux, the best thing about linux since, there was just a discussion of security is: unless you log in as the root and then install a virus as the root within the root shell. The virus is limited because it only has regular user permissions. While this can still cause damage if the user is an admin, its much less than a root. Also, Linux is programmers/power users dream. You can, as the root, go in and edit your own drivers and test them. If anything goes fatally wrong. Resolution is just one cd/dvd away and in most cases your data is safe.
Adam | Apr 14, 2008 | Reply
hahahaha MacOS more secure than windows! lmao. Please everyone go and search google for MacOS security in the last few months. Vista isn’t all that bad, personally I like it. It is more secure than ever, but as it is one of the most widely used operating systems (as in windows platform) it is going to be targeted more.
Ubuntu is the OS flavour for me, simple and secure.
Geoserv | Apr 15, 2008 | Reply
STUMBLED!
A great indepth post, thanks for posting.
VOTED for you at:
http://www.newsdots.com/industrynews/the-pros-and-cons-of-linux-windows-and-osx-pack-rat-studios/
Greg | Apr 18, 2008 | Reply
Gee, enough syrup.
I want a Mac. Should I get one?
I’m to damn old, to tired to deal with all this formating, reinstalling and exhausting crap.
I want media. I’m sick of windows, too, after 15 so damn years.
But why should I rack my brain anymore? I’m OLD!
Paul | Jun 1, 2008 | Reply
im still i highschool student, and i have had feedback and discussion with friends who say Ubuntu 8.04 is by far a great switch from winXP. some would call it peer pressure, others would call it curiosity, but ever since that many of my friends have swapped to UNIX, i have developed a personal study towards the three main OS’s. this article is awesome, and the other comments are brilliant! thanks guys! you have all been amazing help!
ps
i’m swapping to Ubuntu 8.04 tomorrow, but first i need to backup my 1.8GB worth of songs! hahahaha i dont know what i’d do without music. (i would have done so with my appz too, but there is plainly no point)
Paul
Mike | Jun 16, 2008 | Reply
Just wanted to say nice article. Expected it to be the same old stuff you always read when reading an OS comparison article. Your preference of OSX and Linux over Windows came through, but that’s perfectly legit since you were very objective in reviewing all three.
Andy | Jun 19, 2008 | Reply
I am just a computer user with some basic knowledge of the operating systems, I’ve read all the comments with interest as I was thinking of changing to Linux but most of my work is on AutoCAD and Photoshop and I believe (maybe wrongly) that I will not be able to run them.
I think Linux will have to seriously think about if they want capture guys like me.
Eric | Nov 12, 2008 | Reply
Thanks for an informative article. The most irritating part are the replies from the grammar Nazi’s who like to put others down so they feel better about having nothing to contribute to society.
AlwaysCool | Nov 14, 2008 | Reply
i am a windows user and have been since i have owned a computer. now because of this article i am will to at least try other OS systems on my own computer. i do use Linux at work and for the past six years it has been fairly easy to use. with my personal computer, i never bought a complete pre-packaged system. i have always bought all my componets and peripheral separate and built my own PC. how easy will it be for me to do that and use an OS besides WIndows XP (which i am currently running)? my main concern is driver availibility for everything. my system is maybe 1 1/2 years old.
ps. I have tried Windows Vista and I went back to Windows XP simply because of driver availability