On Wednesday 11 March 2009 10:30:10 Stephen Davies wrote:
> 10 reasons why linux is best
> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/10things/?p=528
>
>
> now for
> 10 reasons why Windows is best.
> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/10things/?p=556
>
It's nice to see both sides of the argument juxtaposed like this, although a
lot of the arguments in the second article don't seem to stand up as well as
those in the first.
For example, the "Total cost of ownership" argument doesn't take into account
any software you might want to run. One would assume that if you're going to
use Windows for a database server you'd be running MS SQL Server, which you'd
have to pay for. If you were using MS Office, you'd have to pay for that. Need I
continue.
Same goes for the "availability of software" argument. Sure, there's lots of
software available for Windows, but if I want it, I have to find it, order it
and install it, or download a trial version then buy a licence to unlock it.
IMO a package manager such as APT makes software truly 'available'. Of course,
I could use OSS on Windows, but if I'm going to go down that route, why
wouldn't I be using Linux anyway?
I'm not certain comparing OpenOffice to MS Office is relevant for the purposes of
this discussion, or that his arguements are valid. The way it's put makes it
seem like OO is the only office suite for Linux and MSO is the only one for
Windows, neither of which are the case.
As a last point, the reference to Vista's "premature release" tickled me a
bit. I'd hate to think what the author thinks about 6 month release cycles if
5 years is premature. ;-)
If anyone has similar arguments against the points made in the pro-linux
article, I'd be interested to hear them.
>
> I know the HantsLug team would support the 'Linux is best option' but
> surely there are some better arguments out there?
>
It strikes me that formulating any sort of Linux v Windows argument like this
is very hard since certain points are only valid when you're talking to
certain people. I've always found Linux a breeze compared to Windows for
"getting things done", becuase I've either got an graphical (often commercial
quality) app to do it which didn't cost me anything, or I open the command
line and bash out (no pun intended) the relevant commands. I'd never have such
a felxible setup on Windows. However, that argument's only relevant to people
like me who are just as happy with a terminal as with a mouse.
Presenting the server-related arguments isn't going to work on people who only
run a desktop PC at home.
Presenting the desktop-related arguments isn't going to work on people who run
servers.
To get all the relevant arguments across for each side, I think you'd need a
series of "This OS is best for you" articles for each class of user, or you
risk a weaker-sounding argument like the second article discussed above,
jumping from topic to topic.
Mark
