Migrating to Linux

[aetherfox]

A Linux distro is a different OS to Windows.

I have a dual boot with XP and Fedora. When I first got Fedora, I was like "freedom!!!" But then it started nagging me. Like the fact that it doesn't have NTFS support (I know its the only one). Or the fact that it has a crazy amount of updating. Or the fact that it doesn't have the little things that Microsoft Windows has that people take for granted.

Like what? Drivers. Plug n Play compatiblilty with almost every single major corporation. Support. Why? Because Microsoft has money!.

It's sad, but it's true.

I have gotten fed up of Fedora, and I will be removing it soon.

Windows XP is a rock of an OS. I get it to crash quite frequently because I abuse it quite a lot. The reason you find it so unsecure is because the jackasses writing virii for it are targetting the mass market.

Another reason why people have problems with XP is because it doesn't havethe greatest support for old hardware. This is something that isn't MS's fault, but just the fact that people use old technologies.

[oracle]

There's a wonderful facility called "bugzilla.kernel.org" for that sorta stuff, if you ever actually do find a bug in the kernel. In fact, many open source projects run such services

The point is that all this is irrelevant to the average home user, who neither has the ability to fix bugs themselves, nor the inclination to go and register a bug report. Yes, it is cool that you can fix bugs yourself with open source software, but for most users they will simply be waiting for the patches to be released in an easy to install form, not unlike with closed source software.

True, but joe user doesn't do this in XP either. Let's face it - at this stage of kernel development, if you find a bug in the kernel you have to have recognised it as a kernel bug - in which case you're probably quite advanced enough to submit a report.

In XP, if you find a kernel bug, you probably don't recognise it as such.

This report is flawed in several areas, first it claims to be an extensive four year analysis, then it gives a bug count for the 2.6 kernel which is less than a year old. The studies of Linux and comercial software were done by different Universities so the figures aren't really comparable, the methods of counting bugs and what constitutes a bug are not given for either group. Also, if they have identified all of the bugs in the Linux kernel, does that mean that they will all be fixed in the near future giving us a completely bug free™ kernel? and wouldn't nearly 150,000 in something like Windows XP render it just about unuseable?

They're valid points, but why is the industry standard "20-30 bugs per 1000 lines of code"? I guess a bug is a very easy thing to do, and perhaps all but one or two of those bugs may be something so small it doesn't matter. So to answer your question about 150,000 bugs, you first have to work out what the industry definition of "bug" is

Another reason why people have problems with XP is because it doesn't havethe greatest support for old hardware. This is something that isn't MS's fault, but just the fact that people use old technologies.

Backward compatibility should always be strived for where possible, and I don't think that Microsoft's comments that if your hardware doesn't work you should just "buy a new computer" are very good. If there was competition in the marketplace, they'd be making very sure that they were compatible with everything they could, else the customers would move to the competition.

Or the fact that it has a crazy amount of updating.

Whaddaya call "Windows Update"?

[LooseCaboose]

True, but joe user doesn't do this in XP either.

Exactly. Its not a valid argument from the perspective of joe user, all the Linux zealots in the world saying "Linux is better cause you can fix bugs yourself or report bugs at bugzilla" isn't going to make the average desktop user think about switching.

They're valid points, but why is the industry standard "20-30 bugs per 1000 lines of code"?

I don't believe it is. The article doesn't even specify what commercial software products they tested and whether or not any version of Windows was one of them. They simply imply that because they found 20-30 bugs per 1000 lines of code in /some/ commercial software, that this is the general case and therefore must hold true for software products like Windows XP.

[oracle]

Exactly. Its not a valid argument from the perspective of joe user, all the Linux zealots in the world saying "Linux is better cause you can fix bugs yourself or report bugs at bugzilla" isn't going to make the average desktop user think about switching.

Then again, there are enough zealots who will report the bugs in the linux world, and also, those bugs will get fixed. People don't report bugs in windows because a) They can't be sure that it's a bug because they can't see the source, or b) They're trying to exploit them

They're valid points, but why is the industry standard "20-30 bugs per 1000 lines of code"?

I don't believe it is. The article doesn't even specify what commercial software products they tested and whether or not any version of Windows was one of them. They simply imply that because they found 20-30 bugs per 1000 lines of code in /some/ commercial software, that this is the general case and therefore must hold true for software products like Windows XP.

Of course, this implies that there is a piece of commercial software with 20-30 bugs per 1000 lines of code... wonder what it is, eh?

I guess you're correct in what you say, but that doesn't change the whole "browser integrated with kernel" problem...

[MystikShadows]

I'll be the first one to complain about windows, and I can admit that...but I'm not complaining about windows XP or 2000 or 98 SR 2

Basically to get to the windows we know today, microsoft has had it share of downfalls, anyone that's been here long enough (pre windows 95 even) can tell you that much...The only good product that came out was Windows NT when it did which was originally aimed at a different computing group.

But until then, M$ didn't build itself a "sparkling" reputation. And as you all know, when you loose some trust in a product (or anything else) it takes a while to get it back.

But today, I'm amazed at the 3 Windows I mentionned above, those work surprisingly good but all I can say is "it's about time" cause the windows community so to speak has been waiting a long time for a good OS/GUI .

My main complaint about microsoft is that they are taking out our rights, to have equal computing features no matter what OS we decide to put on our systems. For example, if you want to create your own GUI (good luck finding ATI acceleration drivers for DOS and also good luck finding any information if you want to make your own drivers. I emailed nVidia and ATI more than once to see if I could get my hands on some useful information from them for my GUI projects, but nope, they are windows only (and with some respect they are linux only) but that's it. I even agreed to sign an NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement) document with them just I could make my own drivers (no work involved with them, just wanted the info itself) and still I got either ignored or replied some stupid excuse.

Try to "natively" make any sound card you buy today work outside of Windows or Linux (and in some cases Windows only). This is the side of microsoft (or side effect if you will) that I really truely hate. I don't know when it was accepted that hardware be certifiable only on a given OS, but whoever made that kind of decision really messed us up. Sure they have commercial reasons for doing so, and business being business well, you get the picture. But the problem is at the start, the fools that decided their hardware wouldn't work with nothing but Windows. US Robotics came up with that trend first if I remember corrrectly with their WinModems. To me, even if for commercial reasons, this is as stupid a move as it gets.

If I buy a soundcard it's because I'd like it to work on the damn computer, and I don't see where a company should have the right to tell me that if I want their sound card to work I'll have to install Windows (hardware and software really shouldn't mix, that's the main idea here) and it really shouldn't, it never should have. I should be able to play my soundcard on any OS. Same thing, if I pay 200$ for a graphics accelerated card, It should give that functionality no matter what OS it runs on. When they learn to isolate the hardware from the software like it should be, then I'll be happy. Forcing an OS to use any kind of hardware was foolish and i still is today. That never should have happened in the first place and the companies are all trying to look good explaining why the made that move. they can tell their "stories" to other people, there's no good reason for me.

And that was my 2 Cents (err..more like 2 bucks lol) but still. it's been eating me inside for years now and I still don't get it today and I probably never will. Stupidity is Stupidity no matter which word you use to describe it.

[rpgfan3233]

lol You just bumped a topic with no replies for nearly a year.

[MystikShadows]

lol so did you just now, by tellling me this lol

[Anonymous]

i agree totally with the need for seperation of hardware and software