Linux vs. Windows SERIOUS thread

Name 3 pro and 3 cons for each Linux and Windows operating system. NO MORE OF 3. Don't make this thread a bag of shit, let's be civil for one time.

I'll start:


WINDOWS

Pro:
> Driver Support
> Tons of software
> No DE/package/distro fragmentation

Cons:

> Shitty font rendering
> Panel control is a mess
> Windows 10 shell is a mess.


LINUX


Pro:
> Touchpad/Mouse management is better.
> A lot of office utility are better than Windows softwares.
> Godlike font rendering.

Cons:
> Driver support is a mess
> A lot of fragmentation in every directions. Too many distro and DE. Too many changes in short time.
> A lot of softwares are not availabe.

What's the point of this thread?

they're both shit and neither have anything to do with tech. fuckoff faggot.

let's state more cons

Find out what's the most important strenght and weak points of both OSes.


"Don't make this thread a bag of shit, let's be civil for one time."

>wants a serious thread
>make a shitpost full of subjective opinions

No man. This thread have to be the most polished as ever.

every opinion is subjective. You should put your opinions here. I'll be glad.

>t. mactoddler

Wangblows
>Easy to use, as in downloading things from a normie perspective
>Games. Fuck you it's a legitimate hobby
>Familiarity, kind of like point one. At least for me, I know how to get around and don't need to visit a wiki every 10 minutes
Cons
>Font rendering
>Spying
>Seriously Spying

Lincux
>Font rendering
>command line stuff is fun when I tried to use it
>muh freedoms (privacy, choice and so on)
Cons
>no fucking games fuck you wine
>not familiar to me. I grew up with Windows stuff and it just doesn't feel like 'home' as a desktop OS.
>point 2 again, a lot of decent windows programs I like or need to use are a pain to get on linux. It should be easy but I get why it isn't.

Each os has its own purpose, both can be used as a daily driver as well as a work station. I think that comparing windows to linux is kind of like apples to oranges though. Each is an os, but the insides and taste of each are completely different and for different people. I think its fucking stupid when people on this forum get all autistic about their operating systems, claiming that if you dont use linux, you're a fucking loser. Its all subjective, but yet still so many people get bent out of shape if you use a certain os. More power to people using linux, its got a learning curve for sure. But at the end of the day all of this is technology, and thats what this boards about.

Shitposting

Windows = convenience.
Linux = control.
end of thread.

This was true before w10 came out

Finally, a good thread.

WINDOWS

Pro:

>Support for absolutely everything ever
>More sensible and logical filesystem conventions and layout compared to *nix
>It's arguably the most usable out of the 3 desktop OSes

Con:

>Absolutely fuckretarded Microsoft conventions (requiring IE for the desktop shell and networking, dialogs and workflows left over from 95, etc)
>The whole concept and implementation of the registry
>The worrying direction it seems to be heading in

LINUX (distros)

Pro:

>Made to be open and module-based in every respect
>Rock solid for server use
>It can be used as a live system and a bootable image

Con:

>Unless either MS or Apple adopts it or goes bankrupt, it's never going to be a proper desktop OS
>Due to the open nature of the community, it's doomed to repeat an endless cycle of people forking and never actually completing anything that isn't the kernel
>Adoption and use of arbitrary Unix conventions from the literal 70s

OS X

Pro:

>Designed in terms of UI and UX by actual people paid to do that
>Tons of unique "I never thought of this but it's really handy" features, PDF previewing, keyboard shortcuts, etc. out of the box
>It's basically a fixed up version of Unix

Con:

>Trademark Apple deviation from established conventions for the sake of being unique, despite 99% of people complaining
>It's deliberately made to work with Apple hardware, and only Apple hardware
>An increasing trend to treat the user like a retard, and provide no "enthusiast" options whatsoever

Windows
Pro:
>Huge marketshare
>Most software and drivers are made for windows
>20 years of binary compatibility
Con:
>Super crashy and slow
>Spy's on you
>Does whatever the fuck it wants whenever it wants (eg updates)

Linux
Pro:
>Free as in freedom
>Super customizable
>Natively supported stuff works fantastically
Con:
>X11 is a screen tearing train wreck and Wayland is missing some key features like remote desktop
>Companies rarely develop for it and if they do its an afterthought (excluding oss companies like redhat)
>Still has some usability problems that would frustrate normal users (missing some proprietary drivers or needing another repo to get some software)

>More sensible and logical filesystem conventions and layout compared to *nix
u wot m7?

> Desktop Linux vs. Desktop Windows SERIOUS thread
FTFY.

>windows
>good driver support
>literally has no drivers on a clean install, including networking drivers which effectively stops you from downloading and installing drivers

I will never accept the idea of a drive being nested under the root of another drive, and the logical contents of said drive being made accessible as a file on the drive itself. Sue me.

I agree.
Nothing have changed for windows in the past couple of versions.
I find it hard to believe that people gets shocked over malicious features like it is something new.
If you don't like windows today, no change will make it better tomorrow.
If you like windows today, it will not get worse tomorrow.

>If you like windows today, it will not get worse tomorrow.

I'm pretty sure Microsoft are working their hardest to prove you wrong there.

> Godlike font rendering
Wrong because Linux doesn't render the fonts, only Windows does that at kernel level

macOS

I agree that the way the Unix systems arrange files are very confusing and could be improved. But windows is not good at that either. You just feel that its better because you're used to it.
While Linux spread system files in many different folders with names that give you no information about whats in it, Windows just puts a shitload of unrelated stuff in a huge single folder and then place the users home folder in a confusing directory system hidden inside a labyrinth of redundant folders.

Both are really bad, you just like Windows' more because you already know your way around that mess.

Hence the "absolutely fuckretarded Microsoft conventions" con I listed. Don't get me wrong it's far from perfect, but I still prefer to have drives accessible under separate letters with case-insensitive paths, and the files of my operating system stored under a single directory called "Windows", and not 15 separate three letter abbreviations many of which aren't even real. Same with Windows supporting everything. It's more a case of everything else being awful, and it being good by comparison.

Its simpler to navigate directories in the CLI that way. Its better than having to remember which letter represent what device and having to specify that every time you type a directory that is in another device.
I just configure my pendrive and external hard drive to mount as folders in the root directory, for convenience.

Which would be real useful if we were still living in 1971, when graphical interfaces weren't a thing.

>Windows doesn't have an inbuilt way to keep windows on top
>Windows can't update software all at once (Windows store does not count)
>Windows treats the user like a retard and doesn't allow you to remove features even in a convoluted way (Might be for the best since they get viruses so easily)
>no working EXT4 support

garbage.

-Sent from my Windows 10 machine

>be working on stuff late at night
>ok fuck this i'll figure it out another time
>close laptop lid, go to bed
>open laptop 2 days later
>Hello user. I've just finished installing some updates and am getting Windows ready for you. Hope you don't mind the fact I've closed all your text editors, PowerShell windows (wait, did that have some useful debug stuff that would have saved you time? so sorry!!) and other applications.

yeah, so far i'm not regretting the move from Windows 10 to Fedora

Linux: Good for Servers, comfiest to use for scientific programming (python comes to mind), excellent at virtualization for when you need Windows to play MUHGAEMS
>Windows: MUHGAEMS

I use a macbook with OSX for every day life, I run debian stretch in a virtual machine when I need it.

For the average user, Windows really has nothing to offer aside from MUHGAEMS

Yeah let me just use my mouse to repeat an action a hundred times instead of using a script. Scripting is way easier with Unix file structure.

Also the unix file structure is so amazing that BIND uses it. It's so dumb to even suggest that there is a superior file system to Unix's directory structure.

Using the CLI is better than using a GUI for a lot of different tasks.
You can easily automate repetitive tasks.
You do many different tasks at once.
You can instantly process information coming from many different sources while at the same time transforming it to a format that is most useful to you.
The CLI is a set of many small different tools that you can adapt to your specific problem ( or even freely modify the tool itself ) and use in many different ways that would be simply impossible in a GUI.

The GUI will never replace CLI. Its like saying that movies will replace books because books are old. But you have ways of expressing thoughts and ideas in books that would be impossible to reproduce in any different way.

>NO MORE OF 3. Don't make this thread a bag of shit
Way too late for that, pajeet.

How is a script CLI? You can launch a script just as well with your mouse. I don't doubt it's easier to WRITE scripts that use three letter shorthands, but the standard itself is still arbitrary, illogical and exists for purely historical reasons that make no sense in a modern context. Being able to define a drive as $sda instead of /dev/sda would be identical for the purposes of scripting, and presenting it in a more obvious path when navigating the filesystem from a program would massively improve usability and convenience. I know you can set things up however you want and automatically mount it with the drive's name under /media or whatever, but you shouldn't have to.

Actually, it's like saying that ebooks will replace books because they do the same thing but better. You can have a command line AND buttons at the same time. Typing something out is always going to be slower than having a dedicated menu option or even keyboard shortcut for it. Piping a list of files to ffmpeg and to export frames from a video file which are then fed into an image processing software and a batch rename tool is nowhere near as convenient as simply selecting them by dragging your mouse and right clicking on them. You can do the same lego brick shit with a graphical interface, if anything it takes even less time.

If file managers didn't suck ass across the board, you could have an easy to use option labeled "select every file that matches this pattern" and a dropdown selector that allows you to choose a specific date format for the last eight characters, then a menu entry that launches a conversion program with the preset of your choice. Explain to me how typing a 300 character command with a regex sequence only to realize that you missed a quote mark or an escape character god knows where is somehow the faster and more intuitive option.

Windows
Pros:
>compatible with majority of commercial software
>compatible with newer hardware (through drivers)
>for most people is the known interface
Cons:
>buggy as hell
>not secure against malware
>not designed for power users or even a minimum of configuration in mind

Linux
Pros:
>rock solid even with older hardware
>customizable beyond any other OS
>some distros are noob friendly even more than Windows
Cons:
>systemd is a security threat
>some distros are not beginner friendly
>for some being not natively compatible with Windows software is a problem

I'll Lay it out for everyone once and for all:
>> LINUX - OS OF THE DARK LORDS/ ELITE SITH
>> WINKEK - OS FOR TRANSEXUALS AND SQUARE JEDI

It really is Windows that has convinced you this is how it works, though. In reality, the OS's top-level filesystem is only stored in one place that counts: RAM.

In Linux it's not that one drive "contains" another, even though that's what it looks and feels like to those who are used to Windows. The proper way to think about it is that all paths are part of the same overall filesystem, and that specific paths are a way to interact with various drives and devices.

If you wanted to set up Linux the way you do Windows, you could. Just make your main hard disk live at /c, your CD drive at /d, floppy at /a, etc.

We already use both at the same time user.
If file managers had all the features of bash, it would have a mile long menu when you right-clicked a file.
Using the CLI is pretty similar to scripting. You write down a set of instructions for various different programs to interact with each other to accomplish a task.
If you ever used the CLI to do anything meaningful, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
But in the end, you're probably some of those kids who "fell for the Linux meme" or you're just shitposting for (You)s. I don't believe in actual discussions in this board anymore.

Euro detected

I think we're conflating the way Linux handles paths with the layout of the actual filesystem on an individual partition. Both are terrible, but for different reasons. The assumption is that your "system drive" gets mounted under /, which then leads into the assumption that everything below that path is somehow contained within it. In actuality the root directory is just an abstract shorthand of a ton of kernel shit, which the filesystem itself (ext4) from your system/boot/home partitions gets merged onto. THAT'S why it's bad. It mixes completely different things with completely different ways of operation and properties to be the same kind of thing, because some guy in the 70s arbitrarily did it and nobody ever bothered to change things in a major way now that we're used to it. It leads to completely nonsensical operations being possible, like trying to delete a file that doesn't exist, or writing raw data to a device by trying to save a file. It's a list of bookmarks in an arbitrary hierarchy.

Could you please try to be a touch more condescending? You don't need all the features of Bash. A set of the 5-10 most commonly used features would be plenty. You don't need a menu item or a button for every single possible permutation ever, dialog boxes with input fields and nested menus exist for a reason. And please, do list the "meaningful" things you do with a command line that will open my eyes to its true potential. I fail to see why a graphical frontend to gawk or sed or find or curl or whatever you use for your extremely serious business wouldn't be superior for non-automated usage. Or a simple Python script.

>ITT spillover from Sup Forumseddit trying to fit in by stating the obvious

...

10/10 argument.

Would these set of 5-10 features fulfill absolutely everyone's needs?
The CLI is complicated and difficult to use, yes. But its still the ultimate computing swiss-army knife. Until we have cerebral interfaces that can translate thoughts into computer instructions in real time, the CLI will be most complete tool we have.

I still have absolutely no fucking clue whatsoever about what features you need a command line for that can't be accomplished with a GUI, outside scripting and automation.

Name the five features then.

Not him but imagemagick for once.
I use it quite frequently since I'm a med student and I provide pirated textbooks to massive amounts of people.

>outside scripting and automation.
Oh great so "no clue what you can't do without a goooey excluding 90% of work for many people".

No fucking clue whatsoever about what features you need a full blown GUI that can't be accomplished with a command line, outside drooling over videogames, media consumption, image/model/video manipulation

WINDOWS:

pro:
> Games
> You know you are spied on so it easier to quit any snuff and cp addiction.
> it's "normal"

cons:
> Almost no customization, no control
> Unintuitive UI
> Very stupid ways of doing stuff that you just have to live with.

LINUX:

pro:
> You have full control over your own computer
> Much better environment to do any kind of development.
> You are socially known as some sort of genious.

con:
> needs to be installed, rarely comes pre-installed
> Confusing for people who don't know what a OS is. A certain learning curve.
> Lots of choice, thousands of things you can tweak.

Windows Font Rendering >>> Linux Font Rendering

I'm honestly not sure what you even meant by that. For some reason the first thing that pops into my mind is bash as in the shell itself, not the scripting language. As in tab autocompletion and the like. If we're talking about scripting, that both has fuck all to do with manually using a CLI because you'll likely be using a text editor to do it, and could still be presented in the form of a few common, interactive operations you'd be likely to do with a scripting language. Seriously, name a few tasks you'd want to use a terminal and bash for, and I'll be surprised if I can't translate it to a much easier to use graphical workflow. Selecting millions of files in a directory with regex and the like is only a good point because graphical file managers are fairly dumb in terms of functionality, not because of the nature of graphical interfaces.

In what way is ImageMagick better than something like XnView? And once again, scripting isn't the same as a command line INTERFACE. A command line is a terminal window you type commands into. A script is a file you launch. I'm specifically talking about opening a console to process images with ImageMagick being better than simply opening XnView, selecting the files you want by dragging and choosing the options you want in a graphical interface.

Have fun editing an image in Photoshop by using command line arguments and JavaScript.

>Have fun editing an image in Photoshop by using command line arguments and JavaScript.
Have fun learning reading comprehension.

You are the one who made the claim that CLI needed only five functions/commands. Name those functions.

Speaking of reading comprehension.

>If file managers had all the features of bash, it would have a mile long menu when you right-clicked a file.
>You don't need all the features of Bash. A set of the 5-10 most commonly used features would be plenty.

"CLI" isn't something that has functions. It's a paradigm. YOU made the claim that in order to translate the functionality of bash to a graphical interface, you'd have to include every possible permutation of options in a long list, 99% of which most people don't even know about, much less use. And I still have no idea whether you were trying to praise the functionality of a scripting language, or the usefulness of a command line workflow. Seriously, for the sake of sanity, describe a task that would benefit from launching a terminal emulator and manually typing in the name of an executable followed by command line flags that couldn't be done in a much faster and intuitive way by simply using a menu option, a dialog box, a keyboard shortcut or an interactive guide.

Name the 5-10 features then.

None of those things you've mentioned are efficient.
They're just easy to use. Once you learn a tool, where are the benefits?

>Seriously, name a few tasks you'd want to use a terminal and bash for, and I'll be surprised if I can't translate it to a much easier to use graphical workflow.
download package source, apply patches, change package name/version, build package

Yea but you can rice and make linux look cool with anime stuff dude. I mean I use windows and don't know how to do any of that because im not a techie but linus is better

Sorry, have fun editing a spreadsheet by using command line arguments and JavaScript.

This discussion is getting beyond confusing. How, specifically, is CLI more efficient than a graphical frontend with the same functionality and more?

>download package source, apply patches, change package name/version, build package

If it's anything like version control, a set of dedicated tools and shortcuts in an IDE like setting would be far superior. Most vim shit and terminal ricing by the very same people who claim to love CLIs is geared towards interactivity and GUI-like features.

>still havent listed the 5-10 features

Am I being memed on?

So much translating to an easier graphical workflow.
Kek.

As for ricing, I didn't even change my terminal default colors.
Time to fuck off buddy.

I'm just curious. What are the 5-10 features?

Wow, did I just get SAVAGELY destroyed or what. I'll go ahead and cry myself to sleep now while acknowledging you as my intellectual superior. Feel free to respond to any of the actual points in my post once the cum stops oozing out of my torn asshole.

I'm definitely being memed on.

you're losing it i think

Not really, I'm just bored.

Can't even back up your own words. Name the 5-10 features. Can you do it?

Checkmate, atheists.

It's the new "I was just pretending to be retarded" I hope you're well aware of that.

But what if I was doing it ironically?

>Drive support is a mess
NOT ON MY DISTRO
>A lot of softwares are not available
Oh

Like Stuxnet?

well of course you did I mean a supreme gentleman like you wouldn't get himself cornered without arguments to back up any of his word would he?

That would be simply ridiculous.

>need to install software
>launch install wizard
>10 pages of default settings
>have to through each one
>finally at the end
>click finish
>starts installing

Or with cli

>type in command with options in less than 5 seconds

You forgot the part where you type in man first and spend half an hour with figuring out what those options are.

If it takes you half an hour to skim a manual you should definitely stick to point and click GUI's

>Section 1/73: How to read this manual

>reading is hard

If you're so unfamiliar with the software that you need to read the full manual then it doesn't matter if you install with a GUI or CLI bc you should read the manual anyways.

A GUI is much easier to figure out and use without the manual, though.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

>Windows
Pro:
>stable drivers
>consistent object-based model that makes it easy to script
>consistent way to modify low-level settings
>long-running binary compatibility because they ship skeleton versions of previous kernels with every version of Windows
>supports high-level programming languages as first-class citizens (C# and every other .NET-hosted language, including the main shell for Windows, PowerShell) giving you a rich environment for complex scripts
Con:
>not easy to modify
>little/no variants ranging from low-level things like ALSA/JACK/OSS to high-level things like window managers and desktop environments
>closed-source model influences how people create software, even things that don't have to be closed source (file managers) are

>nix
Pro:
>easy to tweak, many modifications for everything from audio to DE's
>many choices
>many prog. languages support Linux first
>Open source model influences people who program on it, more open-source projects
>scripting model is based on easy to understand procedural stream-of-bytes model
>ton of software
Con:
>open source model leads to lots of competing, only slightly different versions of software that are different for reasons from serious errors in the original to philosophical differences
>scripting model is very brittle (even have to manually handle scripting dependencies), primary shells have not undergone major updates for ages, not expected to
>shell not considered a "serious scripting environment" for anything larger than small-scale work and piping, just used for personal computer interaction & hosting other programs & scripting languages
>little interest in long-term binary compatibility, sort of mitigated by LTS
>ton of poor software
They're both good. I think Windows is actually better than *nix as a programming environment due to .NET & PowerShell, but most Windows programmers don't leverage them like *nix programmers leverage their tools. *nix is better for tweaking and certain langs.

>If you like windows today, it will not get worse tomorrow.
guess again friendo

>>literally has no drivers on a clean install, including networking drivers
Maybe if you stopped using your Pentium 4 laptop stuff would work.

This.

Linux is a blurry mess on anything other than a 3 quadrillion PPI screen.

>Win
pros
>awesome hardware support
>aesthetic, simple but functional UI
>software
cons
>garbage handling of installation/uninstall of programs
>not customizable at all
>too much backwards compatibility and legacy stuff, parts of the OS feel like Win95 at times

>Loonix
pros
>extremely customizable
>when it actually works it feels like a very solid system
>open source
cons
>none of the DEs are as aesthetic and functional as W10
>shit drivers
>doesn't feel faster than Windows at all despite being "lightweight"

WINDOWS

Pro:
> Familiar to most people because is teach at schools.
> Better availability of popular software like a lot of games or adobe products.
> Hardware vendors support it better due to the huge marketshare.

Cons:

> Terrible at managing what is installed on you OS and horrible at updating.
> Very limited options, microsoft decides what you'll like.
> The store is subpar at best and you need to add external software sources to make it bearable.


LINUX


Pro:
> Much better driver support ootb and the few drivers it needs to be downloaded can be installed from a gui most of the time.
> Actual customization and modularity, you decide how your system will be like.
> Package managers makes life much easier.

Cons:
> Some pieces of hardware may not be supported and the best you can get are reverse engineered attempts at making it work.
> Certain software like games may have lower performance due to being created with windows in mind and then ported to linux as an afterthought.
> Certain software is not available for it due to its low marketshare.

Linux is much better in my opinion and most of it's problems would be solved easily with a higher marketshare because they need to be fixed by third parties. If windows wouldn't have that huge marketshare it would have the same fate as windows phone.