Objectively speaking, what actually makes Linux a better operating system than Windows?

Objectively speaking, what actually makes Linux a better operating system than Windows?

Other urls found in this thread:

google.com/searchbyimage?image_url=http://i.4cdn.org/g/1515779229026s.jpg
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Weak bait, but I'll take it anyway.

>… makes it a better OS …
Linux is a kernel, not an operating system.

Now, about: Linux distros.
They are tailored to specific needs (or tailored to not be tailored to specific needs), the best of them don't presume what's best for the end user which is nice for someone who knows his stuff.

>Linux is a kernel, not an operating system.
No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.

Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.

One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you? Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.

Thanks for listening.

>Linux is a kernel
Sure
>not an operating system
Wrong. Words can have two meanings. How old are you?

Fair enough, but if we go with the common usage of the word it's not an operating system.

The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?
(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.

It's literally free, try it for youself, you stupid windows using steaming pile of shit

Except that's literally the opposite of the truth. The common usage of the word is precisely to denote the operating system.

1. GNU/Linux
2. Better than windows; If the bar was set any lower, it would be destroyed by the Earth's molten core.

Windows was free for me too. It came with my computer. And the upgrade to 10 was free.

and?

I'm not FSFfag, I'm not saying you should call Fedora "Fedora GNU/Linux", but comparing Linux in singular to, say, Windows 10, is nonsensical. There is not 'a' Linux.

Well would you look at that.

gnomeme is not linux faggot

>ignoring the second meaning of "free"
>not understanding that having non-free (as in beer) software on a computer - even if it's pre-installed - makes the computer cost more because it means the computer company had to pay for it and they pay "pass" the cost on to you
Good job

I'm looking at it.
>What does common usage mean?
But, yeah, I don't really care, what's the point of arguing over nomenclature in a non-technical context?

It's just as silly as comparing windows 10 to GNU/Linux because there is not 'a' GNU/Linux. There are however many traits shared by most Linux-based operating systems which can be compared to the traits of windows.

Guys, while a lot of this might be complete autism, I personally think that in this day and age, calling it GNU/Linux actually has some real meaning. There is this little thing called Android, and it uses the Linux kernel, but the rest of the components are non-GNU. Some are even proprietary! However, I have seen normies make the dangerously misleading claim that "Android is Linux!" It technically is, as it uses the Linux Kernel, but it shares nothing else with GNU/Linux distros, particularly their respect for your freedoms.
Because of this, we should say GNU/Linux, so as not to confuse it with the botnet that is Android, or other such projects. By saying GNU/Linux, we make it clear that yes, we are using Linux, but we are also using Free Software.

TL;DR: No, Linus, it's GNU/Linux. Don't let botnet phones destroy your reputation of being open and free.

provided you can actually get it working, it just stays out of your way, unlike windows

Everyone seriously replying this thread: slit your throats without any further delay.

Also colloquially know as Linux

>what's the point of arguing
>he says when the most used copypasta in the whole board is arguing against the common usage
The actual answer is nothing, there is no point.

You first.

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.

See

>free
>ok kid
The manufacturer of you're computer paid a licensing fee to Microsoft and passed that cost onto (You)

See:

>pretty straightforward question about what makes your operating system better
>loonix tards get sidetracked with naming controversies

welcome to Sup Forums

Linux doesn't gave a filepicker.

fixed that 4u

>penguinfags can't even make an argument against windows without talking about botnets

/thread
Learn some computer basics.

Remember that pic from reddit

stupid frogposter

windows does not work:
some nigger at Microsoft messed up

Gnu/Linux does not work:
the nigger is you

google.com/searchbyimage?image_url=http://i.4cdn.org/g/1515779229026s.jpg
Faggot.

since when does Linux have a gui filepicker? fucking Linus letting his kernel get bloated as fuck, leave that hsit in userspace dumparse

Because it's not better by any objective metric.

You now know why other operating systems still are and will continue being more used than Linux.

when I want to do something:
there's a way to do it on linux. it's either easy or it's hard. but there's a way to do it. Usually it's very easy and takes a few steps. either hardware or software either input or programming doesn't matter

when I want to do something with windows it isn't possible half the time. and if it is there's a closed source freeware program with tons of spyware shits that fuck my OS up that "does the job" but not well. and not to where I can control it and change it to work better for myself.
the OS itself doesn't last a few years without having to be wiped.

Wincucks think this is the case because the Windows kernel handles font rendering and scrollbars, so they assume the Linux kernel handles the filepicker.

>Objectively speaking, what actually makes Linux a better operating system than Windows?
Microsoft aren't controlling your OS remotely, that alone is pretty good.

Is this for your homework or are you a Windows user? If you used it for a bit, you'd quickly be able to make your own list.

OK, after the usual BS I'll try it
> Package managers
> Modularity (as in I can change every component like DE)
> Runs with less resources
> Doesn't slow down after some time for no reason like Windows
> Updates don't need a reboot. I don't need to stop my work
> Respects my freedom
> most development tools are better integrated into Linux environment (Try to compile Opencv in Windows and you know what I mean)
> I like the look and feel of my DE better than Windows
> CLI tools are a fast way to do various tasks and complement my workflow
> Better stability (at least when I compare my distro (Arch) to the last Windows version I used (Win10)
> if something breaks there is documentation out there that helps unlike Windows, where not even the people at Microsoft seem to know what is going on in their OS
I could go on....

Nothing. Both of the systems are shit. Only MS-DOS was OK, as well as CP/M

No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.

Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.

One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you? Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.

Thanks for listening.

>package managers
Library hell 2: Electric boogaloo

>modularity
More like lack of standardization.

>runs with less resources
[citation needed]

>doesn't slow down after some time
And Windows does?

>updates don't need a reboot
Except they do, faggot.

>respects my freedom
Software is just a tool. Freedom isn't a function of what you can do to the tools you have, but rather of what you can do WITH the tools you have. Hence, Linux is less free than Windows, because Windows can accomplish more than Linux can.

>try to compile Opencv in Windows
I don't have to, Windows is universally supported. Linux is the crapware that requires recompiling everything once a week.

>I like the look and feel of my DE better than Windows
Subjective, but Windows is extremely customizable and could probably be made to look to your taste.

>CLI tools are a fast way to do various tasks
And Windows has plenty of them.

>better stability
[citation needed]

>if something breaks there is documentation out there that helps
If by documentation you mean random third-party posts scattered across obscure confusing unofficial forums, then yeah. But no, Linux isn't even close as well documented as Windows is. Just because you've never cared to take a look at the official Microsoft resources, doesn't mean they don't exist.

>I could go on
Please do.

Im kinda poor and lightweight Linux distros are perfect for my computers

The same computer costed the same without Windows.

Don't forget an option to set the speed of the scrollwheel - something that is on every other OS.
oh wait, I forgot it's only GNOME that has that issue, same as the OP issue too...

GNOME is a piece of shit and is literally holding back the year of the Linux desktop.

It is the Linux standard though, and hence that is a Linux-wide problem. On Linux, every popular application is a Gnome application. Firefox is a Gnome application, LibreOffice is a Gnome application, etc. And all of them use the same, crappy filepicker.

There will never be the year of the linux desktop unless linus implements one.

not really, just use KDE applications.
They're miles better anyway.

>Library hell 2: Electric boogaloo
stopped reading here.

>>modularity
>More like lack of standardization.
ok so u want big daddy company to dictate everything?

>it's 2017, windows just barely implemented a halfassed implementation of workspaces, something that linux had since the day it had graphics
>it's 2017 and windows still doesn't have a way to resize windows without hunting the fucking border with your mouse like an ape

it's 2018

This represents, fairly accurately, how it feels to be a linux storage enthusiast in a world of winfags.

Filesystems are their own world in linux as all NT kill ever interface with is FAT*, NTFS, and ReFS which suffers huge performance issues and is missing more than half the features NTFS had.

Microsoft is more than two decades late to implement some free and open filesystems like literally every other OS in the universe uses.

i embarrased myself then

Not on my machine and anyway all gnome apps but gnome disks are memes.

>>Linux is a kernel
hue hue hue

Same as all these anti-pedophiles who can"t make an argument without talking about Children

1.Windows Rapes your Privacy

2.Windows doesn't have any modern Filesysten features

3.Windows is non-free software

4. Windows doesn't give a fuck about the user as evidenced by forced updates

5.Windows is slower than linux

6.Windows doesn't have any teal customizeability

7.Windows uses too much CPU, Memory, and Bandwith

8.Windows installs Software without the users consent

9.Microsoft can install Software onto your pc whenever they want

10.Windows takes long to boot

11.Windows costs money

12.Microsoft sells userdata

13.Nobody knows how Windows works, not even microsoft

Bonus:
Windows has shit design

Windowy has a shit "Appstore"

Windows is a shit

Stay tuned for next Episode where we tackle why Linux is good (gonna go sleep now, will see if this thread still exist when i wake up)

if you really have to ask, then it doesn't matter which OS you use cause it's not like you're doing real work, you're probably just using the web browser and shit. just like if you have to ask why a truck might be better than a car then it doesn't matter what you drive cause you're just using it to buy some groceries anyway

>linux storage enthusiast
not sure what this is supposed to mean
how can someone be a filesystem enthusiast

Literally every one of your responses is pants-on-head retarded.

GNU/Linux actually has a usable shell.

Holy fucking shit, what a reddit spacing abomination

Fuck off, retard

>how can someone be a filesystem enthusiast
by identifying as one.

That's because someone subsidized putting the OS on there. Money exchanged hands somewhere, on some scale however grand or small, that's just how Windows operates, for a long time now.

Totally true

>better
No, it's not better, just less shit.

Only freedom hating companies call linux an OS. Don't get brainwashed.

Idk, desu.
I'm really enjoying the file meme.

Like holy shit you can just do anything fuck the rules.

NTFS can't even effectively deal with failure.
It's either:
Fuck you, use CHKDSK, or open up a hex editor.
I'm honestly shocked they haven't visible sourced it at the least.

Two years of usage and I can safely say I would trust a proprietary filesystem like I would trust looking down the barrel of a loaded weapon.

That image is wrong

> this failure of thread is still alive

Sadly it is not. But your worldview is.

You have literally 900 file pickers, you're free to use whichever you prefer (including one with image preview)
You can even literally apply a patch (in the request thread) to enable such feature

However you think an OS is tied to a file picker or even to the userland, type really stupid

Where is cover view?
Why isn't it default?
Why does every program has to be recompield?
Why are gnome devs too dense to understand basic human behaviour in fron of computers? Because they never upload pictures to facebook because fugly? That must be it, I guess.

You better start munching my shit, fool.