Is GNU/Linux (technically) better than windows?
This seems to be an eternal question. There are many valid arguments on for both sides of the debate. I think that it is fundamentally wrong to ask such a question. Such a question is incomplete. The environment and purpose of existence of the OS must be mentioned before making any judgement. It is *wrong* to say that Linux is better than windows. Believe me, it is very easy to make any Unix system as suceptible to attacks as Windows. I agree that it is very difficult to make Unixes crash as easily, but it can be done.
If the system is an online system with a dedicated administrator having some common sense, it is very easy to make any Unix much better than any Windows system. That is ensured by the simple and robust design of Unixes.
But the big debate is about the desktop at home. Which one is better? Today, there is no difference in the functionality that can be achieved on both systems. Perhaps free software has an advantage in this regard. But the fact remains, that Windows, by design is much more insecure and prone to failures. However, most of the defaults that exist today in the GNU/Linux distributions ensure that the defaults are such that the system is secure. However that trend is changing and that is a cause of concern. In a bid to increase desktop functionality, distributions are compromising on security features. One classic example is the sticky bit of KPPP.
GNU/Linux is very, very powerful. However that power can also be used for destructive purposes. If a distribution (like Lindows) encourages normal users to use the root login for regular work just so that everything can be done by a single click of the mouse, then we have a problem.
So the bottom line is, GNU/Linux can be much better than Windows, but it is very much possible to use (or rather misuse) it like DOS. It is like saying assembly is much better than a high level language. Well, if you can't program well in assembly, chances are you will do a pathetic job. Today's Linux based distributions have given us an equivalent of a compiler that compiles a high level language as well as assembly. It is upto the users to decide where to draw the line. As Mukund Joglekar put it in the last PLUG meeting, distros might just get 'slicker than thou' and in turn, so will all the programmers.
We must watch out for that.
It is still true that GNU/Linux is very good. But it can be made to look very bad. It is also true that Windows is not at all as good as GNU/Linux. And it cannot be made any better. :)
This seems to be an eternal question. There are many valid arguments on for both sides of the debate. I think that it is fundamentally wrong to ask such a question. Such a question is incomplete. The environment and purpose of existence of the OS must be mentioned before making any judgement. It is *wrong* to say that Linux is better than windows. Believe me, it is very easy to make any Unix system as suceptible to attacks as Windows. I agree that it is very difficult to make Unixes crash as easily, but it can be done.
If the system is an online system with a dedicated administrator having some common sense, it is very easy to make any Unix much better than any Windows system. That is ensured by the simple and robust design of Unixes.
But the big debate is about the desktop at home. Which one is better? Today, there is no difference in the functionality that can be achieved on both systems. Perhaps free software has an advantage in this regard. But the fact remains, that Windows, by design is much more insecure and prone to failures. However, most of the defaults that exist today in the GNU/Linux distributions ensure that the defaults are such that the system is secure. However that trend is changing and that is a cause of concern. In a bid to increase desktop functionality, distributions are compromising on security features. One classic example is the sticky bit of KPPP.
GNU/Linux is very, very powerful. However that power can also be used for destructive purposes. If a distribution (like Lindows) encourages normal users to use the root login for regular work just so that everything can be done by a single click of the mouse, then we have a problem.
So the bottom line is, GNU/Linux can be much better than Windows, but it is very much possible to use (or rather misuse) it like DOS. It is like saying assembly is much better than a high level language. Well, if you can't program well in assembly, chances are you will do a pathetic job. Today's Linux based distributions have given us an equivalent of a compiler that compiles a high level language as well as assembly. It is upto the users to decide where to draw the line. As Mukund Joglekar put it in the last PLUG meeting, distros might just get 'slicker than thou' and in turn, so will all the programmers.
We must watch out for that.
It is still true that GNU/Linux is very good. But it can be made to look very bad. It is also true that Windows is not at all as good as GNU/Linux. And it cannot be made any better. :)
Comments