Which Operating System Is Best?

[reesclissold]

Thought I would make my first post a good 'un. Short time lurker, long time Linux fan here. Well, here we go...

First off, I think I should point out an important fact. There is no right answer in the Windows / Mac / Linux debate. No one has got it entirely right and no one has got it entirely wrong. Let me explain using the power of analogy! [add echo effect]

On my drive to work every day I see lots of different cars. Fords, Vauxhalls, Peugeots, Nissans, Hondas, and so on. I'm pretty sure almost every single person I see driving their car had their own reasons for choosing it, and their own reasons for believing it was a better option than the alternatives. I'm sure most of them are pretty happy with their car just the way it is, and would get pretty defensive if someone else came along and started spouting off about how they're an idiot for driving what they drive.

But, from what we know about the software world, surely some of them are wrong? Surely only one type of car has got it "right" and owners of other cars are all idiots who are just going against the flow because they're stubborn? Of course, we all know that isn't true. But if it is true for software, as is the general opinion, why isn't it true for cars? Because every person has their own needs when it comes to buying a car. Everyone has their own needs when it comes to everything. Why the hell should operating systems be any different?

Let's investigate the car analogy a bit further, and see what, if anything, we can learn from it.

Windows users are like the huge majority of car owners. They like something functional, good value for money, with a good dealer network if something goes wrong. They like to get their car from a company which won't disappear into thin air tomorrow, because they like to rely on the fact that, for the time they own the car, it will continue to be all of the above things to them. These are normal, sensible people, who are well aware that other options exist, but as far as they are concerned, there are just more important things in life than worrying about their car.

Mac users are like the BMW and Mercedes owners of the world. It's a fact that BMW and Mercedes make good cars, no matter what your opinion is of them. Yes, they're pretty much the same as the cars the people in the above category buy, but they're a bit better put together, the dealers have a closer relationship with the buyers, and the manufacturers like to put a bit more effort into making their cars look a little bit nicer, cleaner, and "different". That's what attracts a certain breed of buyer to their cars in the first place, a breed of buyer willing to pay a premium for these things.

Linux users are like classic car and kit car owners. They like the thrill of the olden days of motoring when you could open the bonnet and re-gap the points. They like their cars a bit clunky and a bit temperamental, and they call it "character". Sure, it's harder to find the help and the parts they might need to keep their classic car running, but as time goes on they learn lots of little tricks that make living with these cars a bit easier. Their owners still use them to get from A to B and, provided they look after their car and know what they're doing, do so successfully 99% of the time.

So, I'll ask again. Who is right out of the three categories of people I mention above? The majority, (Windows users) because they're the majority? The BMW and Mercedes owners (Mac users), because they pay a little bit more? Or the classic car owners (Linux users), because they like to be different?

I don't know the answer, but I do know this. On my drive to work every morning, I see a lot of normal family cars, and I see a lot of "prestige cars". But I very rarely see the classics and the kit cars. When I do see a Caterham or an old Mini go roaring past, it always makes me smile. It makes me want to ask them all about it. It even makes me want to look under the bonnet and see how it works. It doesn't make me want to beat the crap out of them for not buying a Nissan. 8)

Disclaimer: Windows XP is a good operating system, and I'm really looking forward to Vista. I also own two Macs and use SUSE and Ubuntu Linux. I've been using Linux for 7 years now, in fact. I was also a fanboy once.

[Lord Illidan]

It all depends on user mentality.

And those car analogies might be getting out of date. Linux is now getting above that clunky stage.

But I agree with you. There is no need to bash other people for which OS they use. If you want to promote Linux, mention it once, twice, if they show no interest, then STFU and continue. Don't harass.

[ajifans]

Nice analogy but can't agree with the Linux part of it.

Linux fits with the DIY element of classic and kit cars, however Linux is very stable so long as you don't use bleeding edge.

I'd classify Linux as simply 'other'; there are so many varieties that you can have your 'classic car' (works great on old machines); your kit car (completely build and compile yourself); your standard family car which is well supported and reliable (Enterprise distributions); and your prototype cars (bleeding edge distribtutions).

[Christmas]

IMO Kubuntu 6.06 is the best OS I have ever seen.

[reesclissold]

Oh dear, you've got me all wrong!

I'm a Computer Science student and I set myself the challenge of not having a Windows partition at all for the past twelve months... And managed it successfully. But sometimes I do have to admit to myself that Linux can be rough around the edges.

I also restore classic cars in my spare time, so maybe I'm just too critical of my own work. They say you're always your own worst critic!

Glad you both got my point though, my point was that people should be free to choose, and nobody is necessarily wrong or right. Maybe I chose to be a bit controversial about Linux because it would provoke more responses, much like my choice of title!

[sharkboy]

Thought I would make my first post a good 'un. Short time lurker, long time Linux fan here. Well, here we go...

First off, I think I should point out an important fact. There is no right answer in the Windows / Mac / Linux debate. No one has got it entirely right and no one has got it entirely wrong.

How is this a fact?

Let me explain using the power of analogy! [add echo effect]

On my drive to work every day I see lots of different cars. Fords, Vauxhalls, Peugeots, Nissans, Hondas, and so on. I'm pretty sure almost every single person I see driving their car had their own reasons for choosing it, and their own reasons for believing it was a better option than the alternatives. I'm sure most of them are pretty happy with their car just the way it is, and would get pretty defensive if someone else came along and started spouting off about how they're an idiot for driving what they drive.

But, from what we know about the software world, surely some of them are wrong? Surely only one type of car has got it "right" and owners of other cars are all idiots who are just going against the flow because they're stubborn? Of course, we all know that isn't true. But if it is true for software, as is the general opinion, why isn't it true for cars? Because every person has their own needs when it comes to buying a car. Everyone has their own needs when it comes to everything. Why the hell should operating systems be any different?

Let's investigate the car analogy a bit further, and see what, if anything, we can learn from it.

Windows users are like the huge majority of car owners. They like something functional, good value for money, with a good dealer network if something goes wrong. They like to get their car from a company which won't disappear into thin air tomorrow, because they like to rely on the fact that, for the time they own the car, it will continue to be all of the above things to them. These are normal, sensible people, who are well aware that other options exist, but as far as they are concerned, there are just more important things in life than worrying about their car.

Mac users are like the BMW and Mercedes owners of the world. It's a fact that BMW and Mercedes make good cars, no matter what your opinion is of them. Yes, they're pretty much the same as the cars the people in the above category buy, but they're a bit better put together, the dealers have a closer relationship with the buyers, and the manufacturers like to put a bit more effort into making their cars look a little bit nicer, cleaner, and "different". That's what attracts a certain breed of buyer to their cars in the first place, a breed of buyer willing to pay a premium for these things.

Linux users are like classic car and kit car owners. They like the thrill of the olden days of motoring when you could open the bonnet and re-gap the points. They like their cars a bit clunky and a bit temperamental, and they call it "character". Sure, it's harder to find the help and the parts they might need to keep their classic car running, but as time goes on they learn lots of little tricks that make living with these cars a bit easier. Their owners still use them to get from A to B and, provided they look after their car and know what they're doing, do so successfully 99% of the time.

So, I'll ask again. Who is right out of the three categories of people I mention above? The majority, (Windows users) because they're the majority? The BMW and Mercedes owners (Mac users), because they pay a little bit more? Or the classic car owners (Linux users), because they like to be different?

I don't know the answer, but I do know this. On my drive to work every morning, I see a lot of normal family cars, and I see a lot of "prestige cars". But I very rarely see the classics and the kit cars. When I do see a Caterham or an old Mini go roaring past, it always makes me smile. It makes me want to ask them all about it. It even makes me want to look under the bonnet and see how it works. It doesn't make me want to beat the crap out of them for not buying a Nissan. 8)

Disclaimer: Windows XP is a good operating system, and I'm really looking forward to Vista. I also own two Macs and use SUSE and Ubuntu Linux. I've been using Linux for 7 years now, in fact. I was also a fanboy once.

The classifications in your analogy can of course be discussed, but I think the main issue with your whole approach is that it presumes that there are only practical reasons and matters of taste to the choice of a car -- and hence to the choice of operative system. What about pollution and the environment? What about the working conditions in the factories where the cars are made? What about contributing to a monopoly by your choice of car? There are many questions of simliar kind that can be asked, but in relation to your post they can be boiled down to one: Is it always ok to do something just because it's practical for you or you feel like it? We're not autonomous, inherently free individuals, but social beings with a responsability to others. Freedom is more complicated than classic liberalism will have it, since you act in a socially conditioned situation and what you do affects the person next to you. In that perspective, I think you fill find it hard to deny that GNU/Linux is indeed a much better choice that windows and mac.

[G Morgan]

Nice analogy but can't agree with the Linux part of it.

Linux fits with the DIY element of classic and kit cars, however Linux is very stable so long as you don't use bleeding edge.

I'd classify Linux as simply 'other'; there are so many varieties that you can have your 'classic car' (works great on old machines); your kit car (completely build and compile yourself); your standard family car which is well supported and reliable (Enterprise distributions); and your prototype cars (bleeding edge distribtutions).

I have to agree, Ubuntu isn't clunky or a kit distribution as standard. In fact Windows is more of a kit OS at that point because you have to select and install each app and driver by hand.

Linux is choice, if you want a windowsesque point and click distro there is Mepis and Linspire. If you want user friendliness of the Linux breed (i.e. without sacrificing that which makes Linux good) then you can run Ubuntu among others. There are also great server Distros and there are kit like distros like Slack and Gentoo which you can turn into whatever you want.

Windows has many flaws, the pairing of Microsofts lax attitude to security with the general inexperience of Windows user is a killer combo which has put a huge strain on the internet. You aren't entitled to support with Windows as a right of purchase so people should stop pretending you are. You can get service for a price but you can with Linux as well.

To be honest I have no problem with Macs apart from the fact they're overpriced (and BMWs aren't overpriced, they are worth every penny of the expense because they are better in a very real way, Mac hardware isn't any better than PC hardware generally, the difference is the OS). Apple are different and are as difficult a company as MS given the DRM.

[reesclissold]

IMO Kubuntu 6.06 is the best OS I have ever seen.

Hmm, I'm having trouble deciding. Ubuntu is definatley by far one of the best distros I've seen, but I'm still undecided as to whether I prefer Gnome, KDE, or XFCE. If you asked me a year ago, I'd have said KDE, but since I've moved away from using SUSE just lately I'm not so sure.

[reesclissold]

How is this a fact?



The classifications in your analogy can of course be discussed, but I think the main issue with your whole approach is that it presumes that there are only practical reasons and matters of taste to the choice of a car -- and hence to the choice of operative system. What about pollution and the environment? What about the working conditions in the factories where the cars are made? What about contributing to a monopoly by your choice of car? There are many questions of simliar kind that can be asked, but in relation to your post they can be boiled down to one: Is it always ok to do something just because it's practical for you or you feel like it? We're not autonomous, inherently free individuals, but social beings with a responsability to others. Freedom is more complicated than classic liberalism will have it, since you act in a socially conditioned situation and what you do affects the person next to you. In that perspective, I think you fill find it hard to deny that GNU/Linux is indeed a much better choice that windows and mac.

Interesting. I've never been much of a sociologist, I definately tend to see the whole argument from the tehcnical and practical sides.

Incidentally, if Linux did "bring down" Microsoft or Apple, a lot of people would lose their jobs, and a lot of other industries would collapse, too. But like I said, I'm no sociologist.

[reesclissold]

I have to agree, Ubuntu isn't clunky or a kit distribution as standard. In fact Windows is more of a kit OS at that point because you have to select and install each app and driver by hand.

Linux is choice, if you want a windowsesque point and click distro there is Mepis and Linspire. If you want user friendliness of the Linux breed (i.e. without sacrificing that which makes Linux good) then you can run Ubuntu among others. There are also great server Distros and there are kit like distros like Slack and Gentoo which you can turn into whatever you want.

Windows has many flaws, the pairing of Microsofts lax attitude to security with the general inexperience of Windows user is a killer combo which has put a huge strain on the internet. You aren't entitled to support with Windows as a right of purchase so people should stop pretending you are. You can get service for a price but you can with Linux as well.

To be honest I have no problem with Macs apart from the fact they're overpriced (and BMWs aren't overpriced, they are worth every penny of the expense because they are better in a very real way, Mac hardware isn't any better than PC hardware generally, the difference is the OS). Apple are different and are as difficult a company as MS given the DRM.

Edit: Sorry, I think we're both arguing the same point here!

What I mean is, Windows is like, say, a Honda Civic. A Honda Civic is a Honda Civic, and they're all identical when they leave the factory. (Ignoring different variations like the diesel or the Type-R for a minute)

Linux is more of a platform which other companies build their car around, and as a result the cars that come out at the end of it are very different from each other.