Re: [TCLUG:16719] The NVidia license

[Daniel Taylor <dante@plethora.net>]

Well, my heavily biased and opinionated comments follow ;)
Of course I like to believe that my opinions are correct
because they are based on facts, but people who disagree
with me think the same of their opinions.

On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 Nick.T.Reinking@supervalu.com wrote:

> 
> 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)
>
Hmmm, is this what WindowMaker gets you, a slow GUI?
Admittedly Linux's Quake framerates under X could be better,
but fvwm2 is so snappy that I haven't noticed any performance
improvements on the base GUI over several major system upgrade.
 
> ----------------------
> 
> 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.
>
Windows 2000 (released) has not been in the field long enough to
make this comparison. Period. Linux servers can have multi-month
uptimes without missing important security upgrades! If you need
to patch up sendmail or wu-ftpd none of the other functions of the
system are effected (NFS or Samba file service, web service, &c.).

The only upgrades that require reboots are kernel upgrades and init.
 
> 
> 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.
>
Yeah, but tell the cashiers at any of the retail establishments out
there currently running Linux (or any other Unix) what their *incredibly*
easy to use cash registers are running and watch their jaws drop.
(Most _large_ retail operations run their registers off Unix, some have
migrated to Linux recently).

Ease of use is an illusion, not even skin deep. 
 
> ----------------------
> 
> 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.
>
Sounds like WM again, my laptop runs Enlightenment in only 32M
respectably. My server has 64M, but that is for other reasons.
Give me a Linux box with 128M RAM and I'll build you an Oracle server;)
 
> ---------------------
> 
> 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.
>
Linux is available for as much as you want to pay for it. Mostly with
Corel, Caldera, or RedHat you are paying for additional applications,
not the OS itself (I could point to $1000+ applications that use Linux
as a somewhat hidden base, but that doesn't make Linux cost $1000).
 
> --------------------
> 
> 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.
>
All popular Linux distributions suck. There exists a market for
secure OS's, but the popular Linux vendors don't want that market 
because it is too small for them. It costs BIG money to verify security
(consider how much the time the OpenBSD developers put into securing
their OS is worth).
 
> --------------------
> 
> "Open Sourceness"
>
Well, duh. 
> 
> --------------------
> 
> 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)
> 
If you like MSOffice.  StarOffice seems adequate to me, though my wife
did complain about the German spell checker :( 
Corel seems to be putting considerable effort into making this
a non-issue as well.


> --------------------
> 
> "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
>
Of course if "Grandma" lives halfway across the country you can't just
telnet into the Windows box if something breaks and fix it yourself.
 
> ------------------
> 
> Hardware support -->
> 
> 
> 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.
>
Eh? I would disagree here, but then Netscape never crashes on me, and my
favorite browser ever is w3m!
 


Daniel Taylor