BSD vs Linux vs Windows

technobeast · 07-28-2003, 04:33 AM

See THIS article and install FreeBSD or Linux after that. Good comparison, full explanation of things.

Kungfucious · 07-28-2003, 05:27 AM

good comparison but ill stick with my windows thanx

iAvalance · 07-29-2003, 02:04 PM

Microsoft didn't use FreeBSD for many years, they used Solaris, because they bought Hotmail from Sun, and couldn't get it to run stable on WinNT.

I somehow miss the commercial BSD products like Solaris, True64, HPAA, MacOSX etc.

aliencatz · 07-29-2003, 07:32 PM

im linux alll the way

cowmomo · 07-29-2003, 11:40 PM

Great Article, Technobeast. The smilies and frownies really tell the story, eh?!?

technobeast · 07-30-2003, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cowmomo
Great Article, Technobeast. The smilies and frownies really tell the story, eh?!?

So what did you choose after reading it?

FrYGuY · 07-30-2003, 01:21 AM

Meh, no offence to any of you hardcore BSD'ers or Linux users, but there's probably more free Windows software than there is free Linux/Unix/BSD software, for the simple reason that Windows is used so much, and more developers code for it initially.

As far as stability, I had a 59 day uptime on Windows XP, and it only went down after that because I had to take it home from college.

As far as the performance smiley... How many of us are running full-blown webservers with our computers? I know I'm not. So there goes that one...

And NTFS isn't nearly as bad as it makes it sound. "Plagued by over 15 years of backwards compatability"? Please...

I'll agree on the security, though.

Overall, Microsoft Windows comes with the computer, works for me perfectly, and I'm never saying: "Man, I wish that program came for Windows...". I agree with Kungfucious, I'll stick with Windows.

technobeast · 07-30-2003, 01:26 AM

FryGuy - compare your uptime of 59 days with the 365 and more uptimes of 'hardcore' BSD and Linux users.

. I think you know the answer.

FrYGuY · 07-30-2003, 01:47 AM

Wow! They can have uptimes past when they have to unplug their computers and drag them 120 miles away? THAT is impressive!

Did you not read the reason it went down? That's the longest I've been without a power interruption, so it's kinda hard to say I'd be better off with FreeBSD or Linux, especially when I'd then spend most of my time on the computer trying to get it to work, rather than using it to work...

technobeast · 07-30-2003, 02:18 AM

FryGuy - I read your reason, but I still hardly believe that XP can hold much uptime if used as highly loaded server. I cannot get the number of winservers in the Internet. Sorry if you think I'm ironic or something - I am not, but Win still cannot hold that much uptime. Or stability. However I'm not going to convince anyone to choose different. Choose whatever you want, whatever works for you,etc. Good luck

FrYGuY · 07-30-2003, 02:34 AM

I'm not saying "Use Microsoft for your servers", though so far, MS Server 2003 is a dang good OS.

I'm saying that using that site to convince home users to switch is akin to saying that "That pickup you have in your garage may work perfectly for you, but it can't do the same thing as a Dump Truck, so go get that. Sure, you'll have to do all the work on it yourself, and It's vast overkill for what you'll use it for, plus the gas for it is only located at a store 20 miles from your house, and it won't even fit in your garage, and don't even think about using off-the-shelf parts on that baby, but you can do way more IN THEORY!".

Sorry if I don't feel compelled.

technobeast · 07-30-2003, 02:40 AM

I'm not convincing anyone. Just found this interesting to see and compare. Nothing else.

Kungfucious · 07-30-2003, 06:25 AM

i think your all mising the point of FryGuys arguement for XP.. he merely means that uptimes for server loads cant really be used as a measure for which OS is better simply because most people using a computer dont run full blown servers. The majority of computer users are just using he machine for work, wordprocessing, games and such. When you start getting into 'mines been up for 1 year bla bla bla' your talking a ridiculous amount of time for anyone to have their computers running.. i mean come on. EVERYBODY needs to reboot now and then, even high end servers need a reboot every once in a while.. why do you think some websites go down for 'maintenance' ..

and if you want to argue over uptimes, my brothers pc which has been used as our server , a measly p3 450 with 128mb of ram has now been up and running since the day we installed broadband. and thats over a year.. and we network 3 computers to that pc for internet sharing..

Dont kick microsoft just because you have this superiority complex about linux. Linux is excellent, but not nearly as good as many first time linux user woulrd like. Nearly all first time Lunix'ers i have spoken to have gone BACK TO XP... what does that tell you about linux... its not an easy OS to get used to unless you have some basic understanding of it. Windows you can pick up and play.. and thats the beauty of it, its not pretty, but it works, and gets the job done.

technobeast · 07-30-2003, 06:45 AM

Well, I will repeat myself - I am not trying to convice anyone XP is bad. I use it too - in fact is my only HDD OS now, I have a Knoppix CD and a FreeBSD Virtual machine too. I just found this, it seemed interesting way to show a comparison and I decided to share. That's all. If a preson decides to use Unix it's just his own decision not mine, and if FryGuy likes Word, and WinXP then why would he feel that I'm pressuring anyone to remove Win and get *NIX?

Ph33r Viper · 07-30-2003, 07:54 AM

That Guy is wrong where he said WINDOWS 2000 does not work great under heavy load on networks.

At My School they got windows 2000 pro and some computers with windows xp pro and the newer computers at my school work very well connected to 4 servers and 200 computers and nearly all the time the network is a bit slow but still copes under the load. mpst computer dont run great BTW you really need a good computer with a nice amount of ram

F*** BILL GATES and Windows 95, 98, 98 SE And ME

Windows 2000 Pro And Windows XP Rules

Talking LINUX, i like to learn it but wont now.

EDIT:

TALK ABOUT SERCURITY: Windows 2000 has very good SERCURITY as in FILES and that stuff
Same Goes For Windowsx XP

07-28-2003, 04:33 AM	#1 (permalink)
technobeast The Grim Reaper! Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bulgaria Posts: 2,387	BSD vs Linux vs Windows See THIS article and install FreeBSD or Linux after that. Good comparison, full explanation of things. __________________ Liked this post and found it helpful? Click on the image under my avatar to add to my reputation

07-28-2003, 05:27 AM	#2 (permalink)
Kungfucious mediatechie.com Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: London, UK Posts: 809	good comparison but ill stick with my windows thanx __________________ http://mediatechie.com Leave me a message in my shoutbox! ... would appreciate the feedback! thanks people!

07-29-2003, 02:04 PM	#3 (permalink)
iAvalance Lost Forever Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Spilniks Posts: 276	Microsoft didn't use FreeBSD for many years, they used Solaris, because they bought Hotmail from Sun, and couldn't get it to run stable on WinNT. I somehow miss the commercial BSD products like Solaris, True64, HPAA, MacOSX etc. __________________ "A computer program does what you told it to do, not what you want it to do" - Greer (English translation)

07-29-2003, 07:32 PM	#4 (permalink)
aliencatz Registered User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: The planet nebra Posts: 23	im linux alll the way __________________ You be Dairy Queen and I'll be Burger King--you treat me right, and I'll do it your way.

07-29-2003, 11:40 PM	#5 (permalink)
cowmomo Registered User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Your genome Posts: 176	Great Article, Technobeast. The smilies and frownies really tell the story, eh?!? __________________ Get MozillaFIREFOX right here, dammit! ><((((º>.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>´¯`·.¸.· ·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>·´¯`·...¸><((((º> ·...¸><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>`·.¸¸

07-30-2003, 01:21 AM	#7 (permalink)
FrYGuY Member Type Guy Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 501	Meh, no offence to any of you hardcore BSD'ers or Linux users, but there's probably more free Windows software than there is free Linux/Unix/BSD software, for the simple reason that Windows is used so much, and more developers code for it initially. As far as stability, I had a 59 day uptime on Windows XP, and it only went down after that because I had to take it home from college. As far as the performance smiley... How many of us are running full-blown webservers with our computers? I know I'm not. So there goes that one... And NTFS isn't nearly as bad as it makes it sound. "Plagued by over 15 years of backwards compatability"? Please... I'll agree on the security, though. Overall, Microsoft Windows comes with the computer, works for me perfectly, and I'm never saying: "Man, I wish that program came for Windows...". I agree with Kungfucious, I'll stick with Windows. __________________ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GB/G/H/J/MC/S d-(--)@ s+:+ a-- C !U--- P--- L--(-) E- W N-(--) !o K--- w++ O--- M--(--) V-- PS+ PE+ Y+ PGP- t-- 5-- X- R(+) tv(++) b-- DI+ D---- G- e+++ h-- r* y++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ Yeah, my computer sucks. You try and do better.

07-30-2003, 01:26 AM	#8 (permalink)
technobeast The Grim Reaper! Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bulgaria Posts: 2,387	FryGuy - compare your uptime of 59 days with the 365 and more uptimes of 'hardcore' BSD and Linux users. . I think you know the answer. __________________ Liked this post and found it helpful? Click on the image under my avatar to add to my reputation

07-30-2003, 01:47 AM	#9 (permalink)
FrYGuY Member Type Guy Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 501	Wow! They can have uptimes past when they have to unplug their computers and drag them 120 miles away? THAT is impressive! Did you not read the reason it went down? That's the longest I've been without a power interruption, so it's kinda hard to say I'd be better off with FreeBSD or Linux, especially when I'd then spend most of my time on the computer trying to get it to work, rather than using it to work... __________________ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GB/G/H/J/MC/S d-(--)@ s+:+ a-- C !U--- P--- L--(-) E- W N-(--) !o K--- w++ O--- M--(--) V-- PS+ PE+ Y+ PGP- t-- 5-- X- R(+) tv(++) b-- DI+ D---- G- e+++ h-- r* y++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ Yeah, my computer sucks. You try and do better.

07-30-2003, 02:18 AM	#10 (permalink)
technobeast The Grim Reaper! Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bulgaria Posts: 2,387	FryGuy - I read your reason, but I still hardly believe that XP can hold much uptime if used as highly loaded server. I cannot get the number of winservers in the Internet. Sorry if you think I'm ironic or something - I am not, but Win still cannot hold that much uptime. Or stability. However I'm not going to convince anyone to choose different. Choose whatever you want, whatever works for you,etc. Good luck __________________ Liked this post and found it helpful? Click on the image under my avatar to add to my reputation

07-30-2003, 02:34 AM	#11 (permalink)
FrYGuY Member Type Guy Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 501	I'm not saying "Use Microsoft for your servers", though so far, MS Server 2003 is a dang good OS. I'm saying that using that site to convince home users to switch is akin to saying that "That pickup you have in your garage may work perfectly for you, but it can't do the same thing as a Dump Truck, so go get that. Sure, you'll have to do all the work on it yourself, and It's vast overkill for what you'll use it for, plus the gas for it is only located at a store 20 miles from your house, and it won't even fit in your garage, and don't even think about using off-the-shelf parts on that baby, but you can do way more IN THEORY!". Sorry if I don't feel compelled. __________________ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GB/G/H/J/MC/S d-(--)@ s+:+ a-- C !U--- P--- L--(-) E- W N-(--) !o K--- w++ O--- M--(--) V-- PS+ PE+ Y+ PGP- t-- 5-- X- R(+) tv(++) b-- DI+ D---- G- e+++ h-- r* y++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ Yeah, my computer sucks. You try and do better.

07-30-2003, 02:40 AM	#12 (permalink)
technobeast The Grim Reaper! Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bulgaria Posts: 2,387	I'm not convincing anyone. Just found this interesting to see and compare. Nothing else. __________________ Liked this post and found it helpful? Click on the image under my avatar to add to my reputation

07-30-2003, 06:25 AM	#13 (permalink)
Kungfucious mediatechie.com Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: London, UK Posts: 809	i think your all mising the point of FryGuys arguement for XP.. he merely means that uptimes for server loads cant really be used as a measure for which OS is better simply because most people using a computer dont run full blown servers. The majority of computer users are just using he machine for work, wordprocessing, games and such. When you start getting into 'mines been up for 1 year bla bla bla' your talking a ridiculous amount of time for anyone to have their computers running.. i mean come on. EVERYBODY needs to reboot now and then, even high end servers need a reboot every once in a while.. why do you think some websites go down for 'maintenance' .. and if you want to argue over uptimes, my brothers pc which has been used as our server , a measly p3 450 with 128mb of ram has now been up and running since the day we installed broadband. and thats over a year.. and we network 3 computers to that pc for internet sharing.. Dont kick microsoft just because you have this superiority complex about linux. Linux is excellent, but not nearly as good as many first time linux user woulrd like. Nearly all first time Lunix'ers i have spoken to have gone BACK TO XP... what does that tell you about linux... its not an easy OS to get used to unless you have some basic understanding of it. Windows you can pick up and play.. and thats the beauty of it, its not pretty, but it works, and gets the job done. __________________ http://mediatechie.com Leave me a message in my shoutbox! ... would appreciate the feedback! thanks people!

07-30-2003, 06:45 AM	#14 (permalink)
technobeast The Grim Reaper! Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bulgaria Posts: 2,387	Well, I will repeat myself - I am not trying to convice anyone XP is bad. I use it too - in fact is my only HDD OS now, I have a Knoppix CD and a FreeBSD Virtual machine too. I just found this, it seemed interesting way to show a comparison and I decided to share. That's all. If a preson decides to use Unix it's just his own decision not mine, and if FryGuy likes Word, and WinXP then why would he feel that I'm pressuring anyone to remove Win and get NIX? __________________ Liked this post and found it helpful? Click on the* image under my avatar to add to my reputation

07-30-2003, 07:54 AM	#15 (permalink)
Ph33r Viper Registered User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 54	That Guy is wrong where he said WINDOWS 2000 does not work great under heavy load on networks. At My School they got windows 2000 pro and some computers with windows xp pro and the newer computers at my school work very well connected to 4 servers and 200 computers and nearly all the time the network is a bit slow but still copes under the load. mpst computer dont run great BTW you really need a good computer with a nice amount of ram F*** BILL GATES and Windows 95, 98, 98 SE And ME Windows 2000 Pro And Windows XP Rules Talking LINUX, i like to learn it but wont now. EDIT: TALK ABOUT SERCURITY: Windows 2000 has very good SERCURITY as in FILES and that stuff Same Goes For Windowsx XP

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode