PDA

View Full Version : Windows Easier to Configure Than Linux?



superbnerd
16th October 2004, 01:58 AM
Have you ever heard that windows is easier to configure than linux? Chances are you have. This is sadly a misconception. While it is true windows usually just works when it comes to configuring hardware, in linux it's actually a lot easier to troubleshoot and solve problems. With linux, you usually always have to go to a command line and deal with text configuration files. Many are hard to understand and each one has a different syntax, but have you ever tried to configure hardware on windows that didn't just work? Its nearly impossible.

The problem is with windows you configure everything from a gui. Thats all find until something doesn't work. As with most guis, windows configuration guis have limited capabilities. What do you do when the "driver does not have any information about your hardware," but you are sure its the right driver becuase is the one from the installation cd that came with device? In linux, you just open up the command line and take a look at the logs or /etc/modprobe.conf, or for even more detail you can check if the device is properly detected using the lspci command. To some this is difficult, but it's much easier than what windows offers. What exactly does windows offer in this situation? It actually offers a similar method of diagnosis, but the problem is there is relatively no documentation available for it unless you are a windows developer.

After searching the internet for a solution I came across a website which mentioned a certain text file c:\windows\inf\usb.inf. I thouht thats where I would bind the driver to the unknown device, but once I read it I realized I would have to order a windows programming manual just to understand it. No only was there not any documentation about how to edit the file, some entries were in hex like the windows registry. At that point I realized I would rather have to always struggle to get the simplest thing to work in linux than have be absolutely dependent on an inadequate gui and jsut give up if the gui did not have the solution.

I guess thats the difference between usuability in linux and windows: with linux you are required to know what you are doing before you do it and the documentation is usually readily availabe (rtfm) while in windows, you can just blindly point-n-click your way to bliss until something does not work at which point you are expected to pay someone to fix the problem (but the technicians do not know how to edit the text files either). At least in linux if there is not any documentation I can always rtfs.

SuperNu
16th October 2004, 05:15 AM
I know that I have found Linux way more easier to configure than Windows ever is. I especially love that after a max of 4 cds with FC2, you have an entire system installed with minimal tweaking afterwards (NTFS, Nvidia drivers, etc). How many cds plus reboots do you have to deal with on a normal Windows install? There's too many for me to count. Also, you won't have a full system installed either. You still need to install office, all apps that are necessary to have a functional computer (no, notepad, wordpad and mspaint don't count :D ) and install drivers for all of your hardware. Plus, if you don't have a firewall, up to date antivirus software and all released patches applied before you connect to the internet, you will be infected in 20 minutes (http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/262).

I must say that the more I work with Windows, the more I love working with Linux. If something breaks on Linux, it is because of a change I made. I can then boot into single user mode to correct my mistake, or boot off of knoppix or another rescue cd to fix my mistake. I know that my usual response for Windows problems is to reboot, reformat and reinstall. I have also noticed that with Windows, settings change for no reason. How or why the setting changed, we will never know. Will it change back? The world may never know. I am estatic of the community support and involvement which surrounds Linux. If I ever have a problem, I can find the answer. If I cannot find the answer, then there are plenty of message boards to ask.

Whoever says Windows is simpler than Linux never administered a system or installed a system.

--SN

Shadow Skill
16th October 2004, 06:11 AM
What world are you two living in?

superbnerd
16th October 2004, 06:20 AM
What, do you actually thing windows is easier to administrate? Have you ever been on a situation like I described? Have your usb buses all of a sudden stopped recognizing the hardware that worked yesterday? Have you played the swat the 63 popups in a minute game?

What do you mean what world are we living in?

Shadow Skill
16th October 2004, 06:51 AM
Hmph just because you really can't use windows doesn't really make it harder to configure than Linux...I have more trouble with Samba for example than anything I do in regards to networking in Windows. [The difficult is about equal frankly.] I actually have never had my usb bus just die although I have had certain USB devices not be recognized from time to time, even when they have worked the day before. This usually means a simple reboot or a driver reinstall. Other than that everything else for me is a hardware issue that is not the fault of Windows. I do wissh that certain networking configuration commands were available outside of the CMD or that those CLI commands were mentioned somewhere readily accessible to the user. I had to rely on my brother's limited experience troubleshooting internet connections to get my router to behave with my modem after a hurricane downed stuff for a short time.

Linux is easier to maintain once it has been configured as it does not break, but windows is easier to configure while being quite annoying and sometimes even difficult to maintain.

For the record I take care of my home network and my desktop is the master computer, so my anecdotes are coming from that perspective.

superbnerd
16th October 2004, 07:55 AM
For the record I take care of my home network and my desktop is the master computer, so my anecdotes are coming from that perspective. Well that explains it. As I said, most of the time windows just works with hardware, but when it does not...

Why did the usb deveice stop working? Did you throw the computer down a flight of stairs - probably not - so why did you have to reinstall the driver? This is just not acceptable in a production environment! The main problem is that no one knows why this happens, so there is not a way to prevent it. You just have to shake your chicken bones over the pc and pray that it works when you reboot. What do you do when it doesn't? Please, tell me.

You said just reinstall the driver. You can't reinstall the driver when windows just says the device is not detected. There is no way to bund the driver to the undetected device unless you can enlighten us.

imdeemvp
16th October 2004, 07:59 AM
let me just re-phrase it like this: windows is more user friendly but not stable as linux

Shadow Skill
16th October 2004, 11:08 AM
So the basis for your entirely non-existant point is one particular type of catastrophic failure.....Weak argument the fix will depend on exaclty where the problem lies if you can verify that the ports still work with other devices then it is NOT your usb port hardware. (Live CD's like knoppix would probably come in handy when you are testing if your hardware itself has failed in such a case.) If Possible plug the offending USB device into another computer running windows preferably and see if it behaves in an expected manner. Then reinstall the drivers, you may also have to explore the possibility that you have a driver conflict situation (not entirely unlike "dephell" really only more explosive.) I had some nasty driver conflict that lead to constant Bsod's until I decided to totally remove one of the two devices that were conflicting and now everything works as it should.

As for what exactly happened to my particular usb device my Ipod's HDD became corrupted somehow and became unreadable. In retrospect I think I had been mixing Ipod song managing tools and ended up nuking my database. The second time also was not a windows problem Apple's damn firmware updater killed my player.

Every OS has certain nasty little failures that are all but impossible to fix outside of a rformat or reimage, but that really does not mean that because the ability to maintain a given configuration and the ability to create a configuration with ease are in any way comparable. In reality those our two very different things.

taylor65
16th October 2004, 04:44 PM
Well, Windows is easier to configure, but then you have to spend many hours trying to figure out why it didn't work, and then more hours installing patches and patches and patches. And then you have to spend many hours trying to get rid of viruses, adware, spybots. And then you have to spend many hours rebuilding your system because it got destroyed doing a Windows automatic update. But, I will admit that the Windows menus are easier to work with in most cases, and Windows has better hardware support and more software available. So, you have to pick your poison - an OS plus software that costs a ton of money and doesn't work well and is unsafe but it's easy to use and has lots of software and hardware support vs. an OS plus software that's free and works great and is safe but doesn't have the hardware support or as much software. For me, the security problems and high cost has driven me away from the Windows world. I guess Mac's are still around too - very nice machines, very safe, very stable, very easy to work with, software that blows Windows software away, but they are soooo expensive.

Shadow Skill
16th October 2004, 09:54 PM
I agree although to be honest no windows update has ever nuked my windows partition. I guess I am lucky.

taylor65
16th October 2004, 10:32 PM
As for windows update, all of my neighbors have called me and said that they did a windows update, and then they couldn't boot their PC except into safe mode. Seems that if you do all updates as soon as they come out, you're probably ok, but if you miss a few updates and then do an update, your system has a good chance of being toasted.

superbnerd
16th October 2004, 11:37 PM
I have experienced the "update roulette" and it is not pretty when you're in a production environment and what su pposed to secure you system kills it :mad: It make you look like a fool. But I guess you are more secure tat way. Nothing can go wrong :D Microsoft just has very different definitions for "secure" and "reliable".

Also, one day everything is fine and the next, the network card doesn't work so I have to reinstall the driver. Please explain that to me :confused:

taylor65
17th October 2004, 01:23 AM
i've had production windows servers at work die for no reason too - i get sooo aggravated when that happens. i've never had that happen to a linux or solaris machine (i had a rh8 server for just over a year that worked fine and I never touched it after initial config). and I've had solaris machines go for 3 years with no work being done to them, and they would have went longer but newer version of the apps required faster machines, so they were upgraded.

Shadow Skill
17th October 2004, 03:17 AM
Hell I completely turned off the prtocess that is required windows update [I probably should go ahead and turn it back on to get the new IE patches, but I'm lazy and most of my important files are not even on the primary drive, and of course I have Fedora. :D] I rarely even use the thing unless I hear of a ne (usually IE) exploit.

Finalzone
17th October 2004, 04:12 AM
Fedora Core is useful to remove virus that cannot be deleted from Windows
I recently updated to Services Pack 2. It removes the useless patches from SP1a thus freeing more space. Like Shadow Skill, I disable almost all MS softwares like IE and Outlook Express.
I must admit that there is very few documentation to fix some issue in Windows XP without GUI and restarting the system just for single patch for instance.

superbnerd
17th October 2004, 04:22 AM
I disable almost all MS softwares like IE and Outlook Express. How did you disable ie? I have been trying to do that for a long time now. I have installed firefox and removed all ie icons, but I have not been able to uninstall or disable it from xp. It's integrated into the os now AFAIR. The next windows release, codenamed longhorn, should be released as Windows IE.

ailmarfarm
17th October 2004, 05:16 AM
If we all got into Linux the same way we we got into Windows we would not have most of these problems.
Windows os - You buy a computer package from the shop, you get the hardware and software all set up and ready to go, just plug it in and use it. If it doesnt work, then call the shop and use your support time that was included in the package.
Linux os - You get bored, or frustrated with Windows and decide to try Linux, you install it onto your Windows computer and wonder why it is so hard to use and configure all your windows hardware.
The best way would be to buy your Linux all set up and ready to go, just the same as your Windows computer, modem, printer etc. Then we would not need to worry about getting Windows things working with Linux things.
This is certainly going to be the way I buy my next computer system. It is not too hard to find retailers for Linux systems such as this one http://www.vgcomputing.com.au/

superbnerd
17th October 2004, 05:38 AM
What you just escribed is great for a newbie, but none of the people on this thread are (should be) newbies. This thread was not started to start another "linux is the best" war. It was started to dispell the myth that windows is easier to configure and that linux has terrible documentation. The documentation couls still use a lot of help, but it is the best out of the systems I have worked with (windows, linux, osx).

Windows provides the option to boot into the command line, in addition to the safe mode, but there is not much documentation about what to do once your there. Windows assumes you either don't know anything and are thus dependent upon a gui, or that you are a super guru and don't need any documentation about how tp edit their criptic files. In linux, most configuration files have documentation about how to edit them, in addition to man pages. Just different schools of thought.

Shadow Skill
17th October 2004, 06:08 AM
I think I have said this already but I just don't see the man pages as being very helpful, since they [almost all.] lack actual command usage examples. I am still often confused by the manuals and have been somewhat lucky so far in my ability to figure out what was going on. Thanks in large part to this community of genuinely friendly users. Just yesterday I finally after two or three months of tinkering and learning how to navigate the CLI got my system to where I wanted it to be in order to be able to kick back and enjoy it. I even managed to get an icon making tool for Fluxbox installed finally (had to do it from source because I installed Flux itself from source.) Now all I need to figure out is where to get suitable pixmaps to make a trash bin icon, and the command associated with it. [Anyone happen to know what the command is to empty the trash and to browse the trash folder?]

I still consider myself a noob but I think I am actually getting past Noob phase. :D

Finalzone
17th October 2004, 06:29 AM
How did you disable ie? I have been trying to do that for a long time now. I have installed firefox and removed all ie icons, but I have not been able to uninstall or disable it from xp. It's integrated into the os now AFAIR. The next windows release, codenamed longhorn, should be released as Windows IE.

I didn't really disable IE, I just don't allow it to access in Internet. However, this board (http://sillydog.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2677) explains how to do it. Be in mind this is risky especially from Windows 2000/XP since, as you say, IE is part of the OS as navigator.

superbnerd
17th October 2004, 07:01 AM
Wow, so there is a way to disable ie. How does it affect the rest of the system? Have you tested this thoroughly? Does the help system still work becuase I think it is html based?

Thanks for the tip.

Finalzone
17th October 2004, 10:04 AM
I finished to test the script. I succesfully disable Internet Explorer that is replaced by a folder called IEXPLORER.EXE. You can pratically put the script anywhere. The good news is the help system still work and even allow access support using the default browser. The bad is when you directly put the script inside Internet Explorer folder and use the help system, IE exe will revert back by create a tmp folder and you have to run the script to disable again.
Also tested the script to renable Internet Explorer, it worked succesfully.

ailmarfarm
17th October 2004, 10:35 AM
If I had to do the same things with Windows that I have had to do in Linux I would have no idea where to start or what to do. My point is that most systems purchased are set up for windows, when we change the os, it can prove troublesome getting everything working as it did with the original os.
It is certainly easy to find assistance in the finer points of editing configuration files from forums such as this one.
I suppose there would be similar forums for Windows, but I have never bothered to look.

superbnerd
17th October 2004, 10:50 AM
There are forums aplenty for windows, but when you searh via google, which searched those forums just like it searches this one, you don't get any result about editing text files manually :(

Shadow Skill
17th October 2004, 10:42 PM
It doesn't really mean its impossible, epsecially if you realize that dll's and ini files are in fact just text files, with an interesting file exstension.

superbnerd
17th October 2004, 10:54 PM
It doesn't really mean its impossible, epsecially if you realize that dll's and ini files are in fact just text files, with an interesting file exstension. If you are so complacent with windows's level of documentation, than why are you complainng about linux's? I thought dll were binary dynamic link library files just like .so files for linux. Ini files are text files yes and are a little easier to deal with, but they usually just point to other unintelligable files.

Shadow Skill
17th October 2004, 11:52 PM
Who said anything about complacent? Linux documentation is as bad as windows in the sense that it is badly written to the point where it is just as bad as being non existant. Linux documentation is not written in a clear manner that makes it helpful and in windows the command line is hidden to such an extent that only a network admin has any chance of knowing about it. Don't act like Linux "documentation" is so wonderful when it is just as bad. Every single system file is essentially a text file you just need the right sort of interpreter to read DLL's which probably means you are going to need a programming ide or something that can handle binary encoding, and of course you need to know binary in the case of dll's. But as I said these files are nothing more than text files with a fancy exenstsion.

superbnerd
18th October 2004, 12:05 AM
I'd really like to see edit a dll :p

The documentation is not all that bad. Campared to a non techy maybe, but you just need to get used to man pages and *nix/hacker culture. It is made by hackers for hackers. Would you really have it any other way? I am not sure desktop linux in the windows sense of desktop is a good thing. I perfer linux users to actually know how their system works. However, I still cannot get the hang of iptables. There are just to many switches :eek:

Shadow Skill
18th October 2004, 12:21 AM
I just want true usage examples which is lacking.
The documentation is not all that bad. Campared to a non techy maybe, but you just need to get used to man pages and *nix/hacker culture. It is made by hackers for hackers. Would you really have it any other way? I am not sure desktop linux in the windows sense of desktop is a good thing. Yet I am the one who is complacent. It's bad writing period no good programming book is written with that sort of mindset all of the good ones actually show you how a command is supposed to look; this is because aside from being textbooks that you learn a given language from, they are reference books for the programmer. [man pages.]

superbnerd
18th October 2004, 12:26 AM
Have you complained to the authors? How about volunteering to (re)write man pages for the programs you do know?

The difference is windows has a huge budget while FOSS's budget is, well, free, yet FOSS has at least some documentation and source ;)

Shadow Skill
18th October 2004, 12:37 AM
And for the record Fluxbox just ate my menu config it decided to erase my eterm flags that I use to make Eterm transparent. (granted I am using a dev version..but still.)

superbnerd
18th October 2004, 12:44 AM
What do you mean but still? As you said its a dev version. You should have been suprised if it didn't eat your lunch. Thats like being suprised xpsp2 kills your computer :p

Shadow Skill
18th October 2004, 01:05 AM
Well it was just fine for about three days..I kinda expect it to eat it by the next reboot....It might be because of the config tool I used to make the menu entry, I was too lazy to go in and do it the annoying way, and I'm probably being punished for it by the Linux god.. :(

superbnerd
18th October 2004, 01:07 AM
I don't think Linus is punishing you. Proper OSes only misbehave if the user who is giving the commands misbehaves ;)

superbnerd
18th October 2004, 04:11 AM
Shadow, have you heard of the linux documentation project (http://www.tldp.org/)? Now if yo cannot understand that documentation I don't know what to tell you :p

Shadow Skill
18th October 2004, 08:07 PM
Yes I have actually, it's pretty clear, that is the way to write manuals, all man pages should follow this forum and their examples. [I had actually forgotten that it existed, and then I found Fedora :D ]

kosmosik
18th October 2004, 08:21 PM
windows annoyance of today:
my boss has digital camera and makes a lot of movies. so he wanted to master those movies on computer. he has an IBM ThinkPad T42 with Windows XP Pro. I've bought him external firewire/IDE case with 250MB hdd to make his movies on (notebook has only 40GB hdd which is too small for such tasks). he is not a computer geek so I've installed him Windows Movie Maker 2 and newest Windows Media Player (for codecs etc.). he managed to mount 1,5h movie... but then problems started. the movie just won't record on disk - it complains about "missing some files" but nobody knows which files (and the movie itself consist of like 200 clips (video, narration, music). I've checked every file manually and it is there... still movie just won't record complaining about missing files. I've run sysinternals filemon (something like strace on Linux) and still I haven't found no system/file call failed - still sick WMM won't record the damn movie... and my boss has spent like 8h mounting it :)

since WMM aparently sucks - but it is also closed, so no other application on world can import its files (FIXME) so 8h of work are lost due to stupidity of design in Microsoft (sorry dialog saying just "Missing files" but not mentioning which files is stupid).

Shadow Skill
18th October 2004, 08:47 PM
Your telling me it doesn't tell you what file is missing but how dare you flood this thread with your useless anti-WMM drivel waa let me go dock your reputation points now...:mad: [Sorry I got some really annoying feedback and I'm venting.]

Back to normal mode now:

That really sucks normally an error like that would tell you what is missing [Not nessecarily in english mind you, it may very well be stated in nerd speak but it WILL say it.] I feel bad for your boss, I can't think of the program I used to make my dvds it might have been tmpgenc, hope you help him fix it. [think there is a "dvd author" in the name somewhere.]

sayeeth
18th October 2004, 08:58 PM
Your telling me it doesn't tell you what file is missing but how dare you flood this thread with your useless anti-WMM drivel waa let me go dock your reputation points now...:mad: [Sorry I got some really annoying feedback and I'm venting.]

You must be kidding right? Let us not get too personal here. Go vent your frustrations elsewhere. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

GreyGeek
18th October 2004, 09:19 PM
Well, Windows is easier to configure

mmm... YMMV.

It's my experience that Linux (FC2, SUSE, MDK) are easier to install from scratch than Windows, but for either platform ease of installation of applications is a mixed bag.

If in WinXX running IE or NS, for example, your java plugin stops working, even removing and reinstalling the jsdk and/or jre (and the environmental variables) doesn't help. If you can't surf the register without blowing your installation apart then you are out of luck... the NOAA nextrad weather movies or any other website that wants to see an active java_vm are off limits to you.

In Linux running Konqueror, for example, if I want to get the java_vm running I configure the option to point to the java_vm file directly. If I don't know where it is I can use 'locate'.
BUT, under Linux, if I want to get FireFox to use the java_vm I have to copy the libjavaplugin.oji.so file to the MOZILLA plugin directory, and even then there is NO guarantee it will work. FireFox in Windows is even harder to get an active java_vm without munging the register.

Using yum or apt-get is no guarantee of an easy application installation, especially for components to the KDE or GNOME desktop. Say you want to add kpackage to FC2. It's not on the 4 CD set, so you try yum, which reports that it can't find kpackage, after an ungodly long time. You find out its part of kdeadmin, which requires kdelibs, but when you try to install kdelibs you find it conflicts with your current version and you can't delete the current version because too many other compontents depend on THAT version... so you stuck. If you want kpackage you'll have to strip off KDE and install it fresh from KDE.ORG... with kpackage. It's just like dll hell. However, when yum or apt-get works, they work nice! In this regard application installations on WinXX are version dependent too, but its easier to sort out... either you have the version for your WinXX or you don't.

Jman
19th October 2004, 06:49 AM
They're both rather compliated. Configuring Windows involves hunting down settings in dialog boxes within dialog boxes with several tabs each. GNU/Linux frequently requires editing myriad text config files, with different formats. GUIs like the system-config-* tools have made it easier, however.

Both approaches make sense in a way.

I can bend either to my will, but I acutally enjoy doing things like that.

superbnerd
19th October 2004, 07:16 AM
The good thing about most distros is that You get the gui config tools and the documented text files. In most cases the guis don't support al of the feature (linux and windows) so you end up having to use the text files anyway, or in windows case you just stop. Plus, with HIG compliances, the guis are intuitive enough to not need much documentation. Of course tooltips help.

Twey
31st July 2005, 10:46 AM
The ideal system would allow you to edit anything, but you'd never actually (in normal use) need to. Closed-source, however, will never give you the power and control over your system that open-source does. If you don't like something in open-source, you tweak it. If you don't like something in a closed-source package, you just have to put up with it.

d-kam
5th August 2005, 01:38 AM
If we all got into Linux the same way we we got into Windows we would not have most of these problems.
Windows os - You buy a computer package from the shop, you get the hardware and software all set up and ready to go, just plug it in and use it. If it doesnt work, then call the shop and use your support time that was included in the package.
Linux os - You get bored, or frustrated with Windows and decide to try Linux, you install it onto your Windows computer and wonder why it is so hard to use and configure all your windows hardware.
The best way would be to buy your Linux all set up and ready to go, just the same as your Windows computer, modem, printer etc. Then we would not need to worry about getting Windows things working with Linux things.
This is certainly going to be the way I buy my next computer system. It is not too hard to find retailers for Linux systems such as this one http://www.vgcomputing.com.au/

I disagree. If there is one thing that new linux users should be forewarned of, it's that you NEED TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING OR YOU'RE GONNA **** IT UP. Users are just gonna end being really happy with the distro to begin with as it would be a disk image of an almost perfectly balanced set-up, but then at some point allow their curiosity to take over and press some form of 'Update' button and reboot with nice friendly 'kernel-panic' message. How long would it take them to dig out a Windows CD, or buy one, when they realise they need to commit about 6 months of their life to learning linux CLI if they want to rescue the system and have it up and running as good as it was when they bought it pre-configured, or lose their data by re-installing the distro completely. Unless the user is a well behaved 'if it 'aint broke don't fix it' type and never touches a thing, they will need to dive into the dark depths of linux if they ever want to do anything with it apart from change themes.

d-kam
5th August 2005, 02:03 AM
Also, Windows is much easier to configure for most things. Windows Update has never created a BSOD or a noticable problem for me. The only time I have had problems was with using XP Home Edition Upgrade and when for no reason whatsoever after a few months working was greeted with a corrupted system file error, and had to re-install. This happened 3 times in total before I moved over to XP Pro. Pro worked solid for over a year before it became bloated with crap and need a fresh install, but no BSOD's, ever. [OFF TOPIC] I used a kracked copy of XP Pro. Why? Well the fact that there was a stability difference between the various versions of XP, and the fact that I had paid good money for the crap unstable one, well I did feel that I had not recieve the goods I had paid for. This is of course, retrospective justification but I don't care. I purchased XP Home Edition Upgrade, and I had little money at the time to spend on another OS, so I felt that far from being a dirty pirate who was doing a horrible, kommuniste thing by using a kracked copy of XP, it was in fact Micrososft who owed me money for wasting both my time and money from having to re-install a sloppy piece of **** 3 times. I will not continue to use krack software and have given it up for good since I discovered Linux. I refuse to pay another on their disgusting company and want to get up to scratch with the alternatives, such as Linux and OSX.[/OFF TOPIC] Anyway, XP Pro is an OK OS for most users needs, as it works and is user friendly when it comes to the 'My Computer' type of user. Unfortunately for Linux, I can see no 'easy' way of configuring things if you are computer iliiterate, or have never used anything other than XP/OSX. Linux is a mare to configure for me compared to XP when it comes to things such as printers, networks and installations. Linux's ability to be FUBAR'd by a user doing something that on XP is a breeze, such as updating graphics drivers or setting up a network, makes it a seriously difficult thing to configure compared to XP (and yes, I would call installing things configuration).

Firewing1
5th August 2005, 02:17 AM
I completely agree. I'm 14 and trouble shooting problems for firends, all use Win XP and all are b/c of spyware, adware, or if it's something else, I think "Damn! if I had Linux it would be CLI solved in 30 seconds!!!
Viruses are fun in Linux too. I use clamav, and I found 3 trojans on Linux, in the FAT32 shared partition. Nothing happened b/c Linux couldn't run the .exe files!
Firewing1

d-kam
5th August 2005, 02:31 AM
I completely agree. I'm 14 and trouble shooting problems for firends, all use Win XP and all are b/c of spyware, adware, or if it's something else, I think "Damn! if I had Linux it would be CLI solved in 30 seconds!!!
Viruses are fun in Linux too. I use clamav, and I found 3 trojans on Linux, in the FAT32 shared partition. Nothing happened b/c Linux couldn't run the .exe files!
Firewing1

If linux was the dominant OS on the market, the .exe file you talk about would be a Linux equivilent and if your friends from Earth they should know that they need spyware, firewall and antivirus applications to use the dominant OS on the market. I have protection from these things in XP and haven't had virus get past it, nor have I had ANY spyware get past Microsoft Spyware detector, as verified by running adaware and other applications on a regular basis 'just in case'.

d-kam
5th August 2005, 02:38 AM
Not that I am disagreeing of course, because without these things your post is completely correct. I also run Firefox when I use XP and need to go on the internet, which is far safer than IE which is a piece of **** as we all know.

macgregor
5th August 2005, 03:45 AM
Well, sure, a paper airplane is easier to configure than a stealth fighter. Linux is much more powerful, stable and secure than Windows. Along with that increase in power comes an increase in configuration. But, I'd still rather push Linux than drive Windows :)

pparks1
5th August 2005, 04:02 AM
Count me as a huge fan of Linux, but also acknowledging that Windows is generally easier to setup and configure hardware on.

It's kinda rough spending days configuring things in Linux that took less than 1 hour with Windows. But once I do it, I enjoy the accomplishment and find something else to work on.

Linux is a great OS, very scalable, secure and endlessly configurable. Hardware installation and configuration ease is NOT one of it's strong suits.

sayeeth
5th August 2005, 08:54 AM
It really doesn't matter which OS is easier to configure or otherwise. What matters is that the user knows what he/she is doing and he/she has knowledgeable friends to help out in case problems occur. To many, Windows is easier to configure. Why? Simply due to daily usage. For others, its GNU/Linux. Same reason. The more we use the OS, the more we get accustomed to it and find it "easier" to use than and configure quickly. If you asked a non tech savvy person with minimalist experience to configure either Windows or GNU/Linux, he/she will be equally baffled. Same applies to every other OS. No need to go on and on about which is easier to do what and what not. The whole idea here is, "It's your choice, really." Cheers.

Omega Blue
6th August 2005, 04:06 AM
Windows is easier to configure when it comes to hardware. However the same cannot be said about daemons (servers). When it comes to security, Windows is a nightmare to lockdown.

fpoole
6th August 2005, 05:35 AM
Windows is easier to configure when it comes to hardware. However the same cannot be said about daemons (servers). When it comes to security, Windows is a nightmare to lockdown.

Not just security -- you can't chmod Windows files, so some stuff won't work properly -- or easily.

Omega Blue
8th August 2005, 08:54 AM
Windows (at least XP) has ACL that you can theoretically use to limit access, but it is a royal PITA to use.

A lot of apps won't run properly in a limited account - not even OOo.

tomcat
8th August 2005, 12:25 PM
I think that we need to keep in mind several things: We tend to generalize things that we experienced with our computers, say, if my Windows computer breaks every six months, I get the impresion that windows is very unstable, while others report (almost) no problems at all. (Same does apply for Linux systems) So this is always a perspective thing and depends largely on the hardware you are using. Some hardware parts can coexist without problems while some combinations are asking for trouble.

When people discuss configuration of Windows and Linux systems, we have the great misunerstanding that many many users say that Linux is hard to configure but fail to realize that it depends a lot on which distro you are using. Sure, Slackware and Arch are a horror for many users (as they are no geeks) but they might have no config problems with gui rich config-tools like those shipped with Mandriva.

The more you hack a system (=customize it), the more it is likely to break. This is true in Windows and e.g. Fedora. Where Linux systems definitely have an advantage is the fixing of a system. You do get very precise information at what is causing trouble in 90% of cases. This detailed information is lacking in Windows as Microsoft does not expect the average user to know what the error codes mean anyway. It would disturb more users more than help them, but then, system administrators need this information that they don't get. Yes, troubleshotting is more complicated in Windows and there is no argument against this imho.

What both systems lack is good documentation. the windows documentation and help indexes do not really provide help in many cases while Linux man pages are mostly unknown to the average user and very complicated for them to understand.
Bottom line is: if you have your system stable and running, do not touch its base and let it do its work. Then, you won't need to configure lots of stuff again and again and again.

Oh, one sidenode. I must state that I never saw a Linux update break systems in such a spectacular way as Windows Service Packs and other MS updates. Something like that only happens in Linux only in the development branches of distros (like Mandriva Cooker), but then those are for testing purposes, not for every day platforms.

sej7278
8th August 2005, 12:44 PM
i find linux easier to configure - you always know that the config file to edit will be in /etc/program_name, you don't have to go searching the Registry, Control Panel or in *hidden* C:\Documents and Settings/Application Data directories.

i almost dropped dead at work when one of our WinNT admins at work refused to run a script because it had no gui - and this script would have saved him from 4 days of work. i said "well i can write a program to draw a nice 'ok' button for you to click, which will then run the script from the cli"!

too many windows users with no idea outside of wizards, i never use the system-config-* programs on linux, or the gnome/kde control panels, it's all config files for me baby!

fpoole
8th August 2005, 03:55 PM
I use the system-config and KDE tools because I spend enough time in text editors as it is. :p I really do love /etc/ organisation, though. At least now I don't have to play musical chairs to get php.ini working. :D

Twey
8th August 2005, 05:29 PM
I tend to edit the config files, because, as with anything, to create a GUI puts the user in a nice safe box, with clearly defined possible actions. This limits flexibility - which is something you REALLY don't want to be limited in whilst configuring the system. It's nice to know, however, that there is an easy option, when you're new.

kona0197
8th August 2005, 07:12 PM
>>>>Oh, one sidenode. I must state that I never saw a Linux update break systems in such a spectacular way as Windows Service Packs and other MS updates. Something like that only happens in Linux only in the development branches of distros (like Mandriva Cooker), but then those are for testing purposes, not for every day platforms.<<<<

I agree. I don't use SP2 on my machine since it breaks more stuff than it fixes with my current hardware. :)

MaegRil
8th August 2005, 09:04 PM
I started using linux when Win98 was the thing.
Why I started using it was because of those dreadful blue screens that appeared all too frequently and the number of times I had to re-install was too many.

So, after serveral years of using this Red Hat (RH 5.2 was my first exposure to linux), and now Fedora I would like to consider myself as being reasonably proficient at installing, configuring and maintaing all my systems which are currently either RH9 or FC3. And therefore, I find it realatively easy to use and troubleshoot. (though, there is very little troubleshooting to be done)

I've don't use Windows anymore, and it's probably been nigh on two years since I've used it to any great degree.
My only use for Windows is the "once in a blue moon" that I want to play a game that doesn't run natively on linux or with WineX.

I feel more at home with linux these days.
I got sick of fixing my in-laws computer/Windows problems, so now they run linux too.
I got my previous employer to use linux on the file servers, which brought and end to some headaches.

If I had only just started using Linux, then no way would I find linux easy to configure and maintain.
And if I wasn't using Linux, then I'd probably still be using Windows, and I'd be more proficient with that, instead of linux.

I therefore conclude that the is no set answer, no right or wrong when it comes to saying which is easier configure, Windows or Linux.
It just comes down to personal experiences, and fimiliarity with the OSs in question.

Though, saying that, I do choose my hardware very carefully. Which probably elimantes problems (& headaches along with much frustration) that others have with their hardware.

mgulbran
8th August 2005, 09:18 PM
None None None None

kona0197
8th August 2005, 11:03 PM
Mark my words. When Linux gains as much market share as Windows than you all will see the BSOD and the viruses and the spyware. Just a matter of time.

It's inevitable...

Owen0197
9th August 2005, 07:34 PM
Guy got banned for an opinion. I guess you really can't speak your mind around here. :cool:

fpoole
10th August 2005, 04:29 AM
Mark my words. When Linux gains as much market share as Windows than you all will see the BSOD and the viruses and the spyware. Just a matter of time.

It's inevitable...

This could be, but it's a little bit harder to crash Linux completely than it is Windows because Windows has that stupid registry. Crashing X, sure, but Linux itself...that's a different game.

Omega Blue
10th August 2005, 08:50 AM
Mark my words. When Linux gains as much market share as Windows than you all will see the BSOD and the viruses and the spyware. Just a matter of time.

It's inevitable...

Something doesn't add up here.

Windows is unstable by design (registry, DLL, co-mingling of code, ActiveX scipts, etc.) - not so with Linux, which is an offshoot of Unix.

Windows is unsecure by design. Many applications won't run properly even under XP unless you use an admin account. There are a number of security holes in the OS that MS can't fix unless they completely rewrite the system. OTOH, Unix was written with (some) security from the ground up as a multi-user system.

You can't get spyware in Linux - at least the ones that download and install themselves from the Net. It is theoretically possible that a package you install can contain spyware, however almost everything runs on Linux is either FOSS or from some respected source. You can't get viruses in Linux either - at least not the sort that has been plaguing Windows in the last few years. It will take a very high level of skill to write a virus in Linux. Notice while the Morris Worm was written by Robert Morris in 1988 while he was a graduate student, Windows viruses are rubbish scripts that require user ignorance to spread.

So there is a world of difference here, from the ground up.

tomcat
10th August 2005, 09:38 AM
One note about security: Someone whom I personally know has set up a Suse Server and a Windows Server for penetration testing. He didn't put up firewalls or other security enhancements on both machines. Then he asked his friends to break into the machines while he will note how long it will take them to get into the boxes. The result: The group (some Unix testers from University btw.) needed less than one day to break into the Windows Server but needed almost two months to break into the Suse Server. I guess this says enough about the security qualities of both systems out of the box...

Twey
10th August 2005, 12:26 PM
One reason (not the only reason) that Linux is harder to attack than Windows is that people who have heard of Linux and have the technical expertise to install an OS (as it isn't usually installed by the manufacturer) tend to be smart enough to avoid malware. It doesn't matter how good your security is, if the user's an idiot, they'll compromise it themselves. If Linux became mainstream, I think we would get a lot more viruses and spyware - about five percent would exploit holes that get fixed the next day, and die out; the other ninety-five percent would prey on user stupidity, as users have everything installed and user-friendly and a technical mind is no longer required.

fpoole
10th August 2005, 01:41 PM
I don't know that Gnome or KDE will ever be that user-friendly. I have a time finding stuff in my own menus some days (Partly my fault, but what about people even less organised? [Is that possible?]). :p It's probably best that we leave some level of CLI use in any Linux interface, not just for security but to give a subconscious appreciation for the magnitude of actions and a conscious realisation that a little work with great results is better than no work and bad results.

Twey
10th August 2005, 02:43 PM
Very true, but I think it's only a matter of time before KDE becomes that user-friendly. GNOME needs a little more work, but only a little. The user no longer needs to use the CLI for day-to-day applications - less so in Fedora than in distributions that focus more on user-friendliness, such as SuSE. If we think of Fedora with GNOME as being at the Win98 stage of CLI-usage, it's only a couple of years until it gets to Win2K, which was pretty much where we saw the last of the CLI in the Microsoft line.

MaegRil
10th August 2005, 03:26 PM
What are the file attributes when you download a file of save a file from an e-mail attachment?

read-write - I believe

So, for a file that contains a virus to execute, one has to give it execute permissions.
Surely, that alone will make it harder for a virus to spread easily and rapidly?

fpoole
10th August 2005, 03:28 PM
Yes, and some files have to be in the proper directory to even do that. And those directories are usually root-controlled, which means a chmod or chown, which, for the time being, means CLI.

Twey
10th August 2005, 03:38 PM
Nope. Both Nautilus and Konqueror can handle a chmod. Root access can be done using gnome-askpass or kdesu.

fpoole
10th August 2005, 03:56 PM
Nope. Both Nautilus and Konqueror can handle a chmod. Root access can be done using gnome-askpass or kdesu.

Ah. Interesting.

MarksCorner
24th July 2007, 04:41 AM
You just have to shake your chicken bones over the pc and pray that it works when you reboot. What do you do when it doesn't? Please, tell me.
Yea I like that :)
Your probibly ok with Windows solong as you never connect to the internet. To me Windows just
aint worth the hassel of chasing out viruses, toolbars being installed, spyware and all that stuff
us Linux users dont have to worry about, Not to mention haveing to give up over half of the
machines resources just to run software to protect us while on the internet thus givving us a
much faster machine.

If you are a dedicated Windows user, Here is something to ponder!
Why is most the sites on the internet today run from a Linux based operating system and not a
Windows based operating system?

Your right Security and Preformance :)

Mark

skaval24
24th July 2007, 12:11 PM
This is really interesting. To say that Linux is easier to configure than Windows. thats the biggest LIE i have ever heard.

Linux is good for you geeks. you guys who want to get your hands dirty with the commands and stuff. But one thing you are forgetting is that the Unix world is trying hard every day to become like Windows. Just accept, Windows is the best there is out there and the gnu movement is just mad Bill Gates made alot of money selling software when they thought there software was better.

I use linux and Solaris everyday, but i am not blind to the fact that Windows is very good for the basic user. You dont have to spend ours studying for you to get things done. Just a click and you are on top of the world.

I recently installed fedora and i couldnt play MP3s on the first attempt. Had to configure stuff. man i was mad. All the fuss and you cant play an MP3. lets get serious, you cant beat Windows not for now guys. As for games, movies, hardware configuration and all that, Windows is the one. Hard Luck, you got alot of work to do to catch up.

strikeforce
24th July 2007, 12:37 PM
This is really interesting. To say that Linux is easier to configure than Windows. thats the biggest LIE i have ever heard.

Linux is good for you geeks. you guys who want to get your hands dirty with the commands and stuff. But one thing you are forgetting is that the Unix world is trying hard every day to become like Windows. Just accept, Windows is the best there is out there and the gnu movement is just mad Bill Gates made alot of money selling software when they thought there software was better.

I use linux and Solaris everyday, but i am not blind to the fact that Windows is very good for the basic user. You dont have to spend ours studying for you to get things done. Just a click and you are on top of the world.

I recently installed fedora and i couldnt play MP3s on the first attempt. Had to configure stuff. man i was mad. All the fuss and you cant play an MP3. lets get serious, you cant beat Windows not for now guys. As for games, movies, hardware configuration and all that, Windows is the one. Hard Luck, you got alot of work to do to catch up.

You can't play mp3's on windows be default either. Get a grip if you use linux and solaris everyday and you have no idea how to configure Fedora you don't deserve to be employed.

I'm sorry but everything you are talking about smells of a troll that has no idea. Noone is jealous of Bill Gates and linux is easier to configure than windows you have config files or gui equivalents.

Just because you have no clue how to use a computer doesn't mean other people should suffer your inadequacies.

schwim
24th July 2007, 03:49 PM
Man, I thought I was the only one that obliviously responded to 2 year old topics without any segue...

I could care less if it's easier than Windows to configure. Part of it is because of my natural apathy, but another part is it keeps the morons at bay.

The topic is refreshing, although I wish a mod would relabel it "Battle of the fanb0ys" :D

thanks,
json

Stian1979
26th July 2007, 05:58 AM
I tryed to play a DVD and failed over and ower agasin.

Installed fedora and the bag+ugly codecs and vlc and I was able to play DVD's without havig to change sone or annything.

Codecs don't work by default is not linux fault, but the license, buy a suse or redhat license and the codecs are probartly installed.

Hardware is not linux fault eather, but we should be impresed soo mutch hardware work in linux when you look at the total lack of efort from the hardware manufacturers.

rpstitz
26th July 2007, 09:08 AM
Ok, I have really enjoyed reading this thread and feel compelled to add my $.02 worth. I have installed Win98 so many times that I have the CD key memorized (truely) and Win2K and XPPro as well (not quite memorized, but it comes to me all in pieces). The biggest problem I have is that my CDs are so out of date (Norton, etc) that when I get the OS running and get online to download virus updates and security patches, I'm slammed almost instantly with popups telling me that my PC has x# of registry probs and viruses and spyware, etc and I get viruses before I can get virus updates. Sometimes it even crashed my OS before I was protected, and I had to start over again.
As far as the hardware, I don't understand everyone saying that it's easier to setup with Windows. Windows can't do ANYTHING without a driver telling it how to. Most drivers aren't included in the install, so you need the CD that came with said hardware, or you have to download one (driver-guide.com is great). With FC6, my modem, video, etc just works. Even my brand new HP printer was detected and works great without having to go find a driver. Maybe I'm just lucky to have rare hardware that happens to work, I don't know. My PC is a Dell Dimension 2400, made for WinXP. Go figure.

I have been building PCs with Windows pre-installed since the DOS 6.22 and Win 3.11 days, and I've been using FC6 for less than 6 months. In my opinion, Linux is SO MUCH EASIER TO GET GOING that I'll never go back. And yes, I am very familiar with the command line in WinXP. It is nearly identical to DOS. I can't count the number of times I've had a house call where I had to reboot in safe mode, go to command line and hand-delete files that were otherwise protected by the OS, because they were infected by a virus. It's a very easy process and it pays quite well. I'll just keep Linux, and keep fixing everyone else's Windows. I used to have to keep a Windows based PC handy so I could talk people through simple fixes over the phone, but I've gotten nearly every Win dialog box memorized to the point where I don't need a local example handy to guide them anymore. Both OSs are very important to me now; Linux is my rock and Windows is my cash cow :D

Stian1979
26th July 2007, 11:51 AM
If all hardware is suported linux is way easier to configure.

I had a hard time geting DVD to play on windows xp. On fedora it worked once I got the codecs installed.

Internet was just plug in the lan cable and there it was. I newer had that easy time to get internet working on windows, allway had to folow a stupid wizard that ask me if I have modem, satelit, lan, wlan, isdn, toiletpaper and if I rememberd to flush befour I can surf.

Last time I booted into windows I was just going to check something and when I was going to reboot to fedora it had started to download a update I newer asked for :mad: I pusjed the powerbutton and did a forced shutdown in anger.

The only thing I can complain about is not linux fault. Software and games only sold for Windows and hardware vendors only suporting Vista and XP.

CardcaptorStace
27th July 2007, 03:04 PM
Linux these days is a lot easier to configure (even though my brother does it all) :P So many Windows CD's to install here and there. Linux just picked up my devices without needing to install anything extra.

JN4OldSchool
27th July 2007, 03:07 PM
Linux these days is a lot easier to configure (even though my brother does it all) :P So many Windows CD's to install here and there. Linux just picked up my devices without needing to install anything extra.

So what's your game? You tryin to fit in or something? You better be careful, people might start liking you if you keep posting stuff like this! :D