What is the advantage of Linux?

[QuickSilver]

The title no doubt seems like a very ignorant question to some of you, but while I have a lot of Windows expierience, I know almost nothing when it comes to Linux.

[GhostRecon]

Lots of things, There was an article about Linux on PCMech.
Linux is free! Linux is based on Unix.

Windows and Mac interface are considered so easy to use. They are designed to give the user less power.
Using Linux, there is less automatically done for you, but putting more power of your system in your hands. Linux may not be the os for you, its quite a change from Windows or Mac.

[bailey]

linux is mostly used as a server system in a work place as it has a great confiqureability system, it is not based for the adverage home user, it is not as user friendly.
it will not run a lot of games and software that a adverage home user would.

but in a busnes enviroument it would be very usefull and secure
also very good when networking a large number of computers

[mikeL]

I've been using linux for about 3 years, although the learning curve is somewhat steep, it is a very nice OS it also comes with loads of software like Star Office or Open Office to development software, and everything in between. I like linux because it is something more than a point and click OS. I can set it up anyway I want too.

Mike

[mystvearn]

Depends what type of person, gamer-stick to windows, most games are DX8,9.
Other than that, linux is ok. Like mikeL said-steep learning curve, but there are lots of versions. Find what suits you best

[MSIuser]

I've decided to give linux a shot at the minute, had a go at it a while ago but i never had much time or patience with it. Now it getting stuck in. I'm using mandrake 8.2 and it's pretty simple to get installed and up and running (sadly I don't have broadband to download new versions. Sniff!) I'm gonna use it mainly for web development and testing I think and maybe to learn a bit of software programming.

[HAL9000]

I like Linux for a file/web/ftp server, but nothing more.

[QuickSilver]

Thanks a lot for all the imput guys!

[LocoCoyote]

I have to disagree with the statement about Linux not being a workstation (end user) OS. While true a few years back, and still true of some of the less than main stream distros, it no longer holds true for the current crop.
Mandrake, redHat (sorry fendora or something), and SuSE all install with a very windows like feel. After installation, most windows users would feel right at home. Tools such as Wine and crossOver Office have come a very long way toward making windows programs function with linux. I use MS office 2000 pro (all apps) on my SuSE 9 box daily.
True, there are trade offs, but hey.welcome to the real world. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Linux is gaining in popularity because it is becomming more like MS Windows. Good thing? don't know yet, but I suspect time will tell.

So, back to the question at hand...Why Linux over Windows....Me, I like the command line. Linux gives me much more playing room with the shell than I get in XP. But heck, why one or the other? i use both......

[bailey]

yes there are the basic office type of programs in linux, but thats about it, just try to run down to your local wal-mart and buy some software for it,
all I was saying was not that it is not a good client workstation, but was infact not ready for the home normal use system yet, but is getting closer.

[Statica]

Linux is definitely eons away from being a General purpose desktop. If you are looking to replace your desktop for the sake of replacing a generic purpose workstation and expect to play games and do all the things you do on Windows just the way you did them - Linux is going to disappoint you.

What Linux is - is a core network/server oriented OS that is trying to make inroads into a Desktop realm. The way I like to see it - it's an OS that allows a server/network admin to also putter around on a GUI while performing core network/server/development tasks. In it's original spirit, it wasn't designed to be competition or a replacement to desktop Windows. Yes, you can do most things on Windows on Linux but it will take some getting used to and some unlearning before you can use a new technique.
Linux is also a an excellent desktop replacement for limited functionality. Consider having a company with 50 computers, for people using the web on their computers and some specific related tasks. Well Linux does it efficiently, and for free.

[kilgoretrout]

The main linux advavantages are:

1. Cost - it's generally freely downloadable;
2. Security - virtually no viruses no adware and a generally better security model out of the box;
3. Openess - the code is open and once you know what you are doing you can set your box up just the way you want;
4. Privacy - linux doesn't have any phone home features built in; you are definitely in control of every process that runs on your linux box. you can lock linux down as tight as you want.

I disagree with the assessment that linux is "eons" away from being a suitable general purpose desktop. It's here now IMHO. I've been using linux as my main desktop OS for the past two years and have seen great strides in desktop linux over that time. Certainly for most users that just want to surf the net, do email, do wordprocessing and play a few games, linux is more than capable.
Your comments on the learning curve for linux are very accurate in my experience. It will definitely take some time and effort but it is well worth the effort.

[morriswindgate]

Well I will not be building computers with Linux on it for a long time, since most of the people I build for can't get on AOL without help, it would be a nightmare for them to have something they could screw up big time. And unfortunatly that is where the average computer buyer is at these days, they want a computer but they do not want to learn it.
Linux for the foreseeable future will be a geek program and nothing else for the basic computer user.

[LocoCoyote]

Windows is easy to screw up too....Just that Daddy Micro$oft tries to make it hard. Think registry!
I have been using SuSE as my main desktop OS for about a year now. recently I upgraded to version 9 and added the crossover office CD (Wine rack they call it). Since then I have been running an astounding number of windows Apps on my SuSE machine. There are some performance hits and occasional issues, but it works very well indeed. MS office is still king of the office suites..IMHO, so haviing it up and runnig on Linux gives me a warm & Fuzzy.
My point here is that the major Linux distros have become very much windows like..so much so that I think most windows users will have very little trouble adjusting. As for the folks who can't even log onto AOL...well those folks will find a way to screw up anything you do for them.

[Dswissmiss]

I'm wondering, is linux really the safer alternative? I think right now it definately is, but I think once it grows in popularity, more people will be able to write viruses in linux, so it seems that safety is relative to the amount of users. On the other hand though, since its open source, I would assume that fixes will be available at a much faster rate than Windows.

[LocoCoyote]

DSwissmiss I agree. Once it becomes more popular, it will draw the scum in droves. However, one advantage is the number of folks looking at soultions. Micro$oft has some of the best programers in the world...but Unix/Linux has the world!

I wonder how many MS programers are active in the *nix community?

[ktkendall]

STABILITY, we run unix on our older systems and now Linux on the newer ones cause they need to run 24/7 without having to be rebooted periodically. I've went in to some of our customers and checked the log and have seen some that have not had a shut down for years. I think now though my company is on the Linux bandwagon cause of the cost being way cheaper. We do make one system that is WinNT/2k based and of course it needs a good reboot every now and then and if the cust doesn't do it at his convenience the sys will lock up at the most inconvenient time and then they do it anyways..

[LocoCoyote]

For someone who likes to involve himself in the OS (read that as play with things he shouldn't be messing with) I have found that *nix can be quite unstable too!

[Statica]

Assume that you have competent system administrators for servers running Microsoft and UNIX/Linus OS' - given that scenario of a certain level of competence, a "virus" for a *NIX system is close to impossible to run without getting the appropriate permission from the system. The issue with Windows, and always has been, is the ability of any program to run with little or no user intervention. It is hard to come up with a script that will come to a NIX, through an insecure source - like email/WWW, then install itself, and then execute itself at will... if anything like that happened for a NIX system, and I owned the hardware, I would simply boot the sysadmin for sheer stupidity.
Yes there will be vulnerabilities that are always trying to be looked at, but believe me there are a lot more serious hackers looking into UNIX vulnerabilities, and once in a while something does come along that makes the entire server world shiver .. but since patches come from a distributed collective they are more frequent.

I think when you speak of stability, you must distinguish between test systems from production systems. I've been able to crash test systems running MS-DOS, however for stable production systems, I honestly have to look up server logs to see the last time I had to reboot. There is another corrollary to that - IMHO, no GUI based OS out there is one that I would use as a production server - not Linux either, it's just too flaky, and comes bundled with crapware.

[AerynSedai]

the first real compromising of a network was done by a buffer overflow exploit on the ancestor of the unix command "finger". i would guess upwards of about 85% of windows' patched bugs are overflow exploits.

for some reason, microsoft programmers either don't care or don't know how to avoid these mistakes. there is no reason why linux would be exempt to these exploits (file permissions or not, once you compromise a root service the machine is literally yours for the taking) but the linux community takes better care to prevent these mistakes.

AS

[kilgoretrout]

Buffer overflow vulnerabilities are easy to get in C/C++ which are the dominant languages used in OS design(both windows and *nix). I'm afraid they'll be around for a while.

Re linux security advantage being due to its low market share, I don't buy it. Apache has over 2/3 of the server market and has a much better security record than windows' IIS. However, there seems to be an inverse relation between security and ease of use. If linux is dumbed down enough alla lindows running as root by default and other comprimises to make for greater ease of use for the average user that has trouble logging into AOL, security problems will increase IMHO most likely in the area of root exploits, trojans and worms. At present though transmission of malware is much more difficult in *nix systems because a user has to affirmatively do things as root to get the malware executable to run.

[LocoCoyote]

Statica I hear you, in fact that was a very well thought-out response. You are correct I think. There is a world of differnance from me crashing my system by playing with it and it crashing on it's own. It is also true that many more expiereanced hackers are looking at *nix...heck it wouldn't even exsist if that weren't true!

IMHO there is and always will be a place for both types of OS GUI and Non GUI.

Ain't it a wonderful world!

[AerynSedai]

Buffer overflow vulnerabilities are easy to get in C/C++ . . . I'm afraid they'll be around for a while.

oh come on. buffer overflow exploits are entirely preventable if you just take a minute to fix it. they are only possible if you accept input from the user (unless your program exploits itself like aol instant messenger used to do). they even wrote alternatives to the dangerous standard c functions gets() and the like. using these alternatives avoids almost all buffer overflow exploits.

i am not arguing that the exploits won't be around for a while, but only as long as mission critical applications are done by unenlightened programmers.

AS

[kilgoretrout]

buffer overflow exploits are entirely preventable

They certainly are and so are automoblie accidents if only people would drive carefully and pay attention. However, human nature being what it is, both will be around for a while.

[patislesfan]

Originally posted by Dswissmiss I'm wondering, is linux really the safer alternative? I think right now it definately is, but I think once it grows in popularity, more people will be able to write viruses in linux, so it seems that safety is relative to the amount of users. On the other hand though, since its open source, I would assume that fixes will be available at a much faster rate than Windows.

Originally posted by LocoCoyote DSwissmiss I agree. Once it becomes more popular, it will draw the scum in droves. However, one advantage is the number of folks looking at soultions. Micro$oft has some of the best programers in the world...but Unix/Linux has the world! I wonder how many MS programers are active in the *nix community?

I have to disagree with both of. I thought of that same thing until I read an article in The Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/56/33226.html

Check it out and let me know what you think. I think you will think differently about the security in Linux after you read it.

[AerynSedai]

They certainly are and so are automoblie accidents if only people would drive carefully and pay attention.

all i can think of now is that list of jokes comparing microsoft windows os to cars.

"Occasionally your car would just die on the motorway for no reason;
accept this, restart and drive on."

but, for the same reason they don't let amateurs on daytona, i don't think they should let unenlightened programmers code important software.

it is not a matter of being safe, it is a matter of being smart.

AS

[colecifer]

Linux is actually one of the most vulnerable OS's out there. Unless you change it around. The reason its so vulnerable is the source code is so easily available. While this is also a great thing about it, it is also its weakest point. So one can go through and change the code however they wish to prevent virues, while another may go through that code simply to find exploits. The reason windows seems to be more vulnerable is because windows viruses are always so widespread. No one can change their windows to not be vulnerable to it until a patch is released. Also less viruses are written for linux becuase it isn't as popular. Virus writers want to do as much damage as possible and the stupid computer users(windows has more) are more likely to be tricked by viruses. A linux user isn't going to get and e-mail that simply says hi in the message with no text and and attachment then open it. As someone using linux is obviously knowledgable in computers and won't be dooped into opening such an obvious virus.

Sorry for the long post, just my $0.02 on the flaw of linux. The ironic flaw that also makes it friggin awesome.

[Mac Medic]

the security through obscurity arguement is a commonly held belief by windows users, but the fact is, windows allows programs to run with root priviledges without any user intervention, linux and Unix OS's do not. Opening an infected e-mail in Unix will not infect your machine as code will not be allowed to execute without user intervention (an Admin Password). If windows worked the same way it would have far less worms and trojans too, but apparently it's a bit too hard to type in a user name and password in windows and thus protect your system. So even if Linux does gain in popularity, what would be the point in writing a virus that wouldn't run?, well, there isn't. That why, after 3 years, there isn't a single virus for OS X. It's the most popular unix Distro available with 15million users but no viruses have been written for it because they will not execute in the background like they do on windows machines. Hopefully all this will change in longhorn and M$ will finally add this level of security, but I wont hold my breath.

[sbailey12]

The code won't be allowed to execute as long as the person trying to run the code doesn't know the root password. In reality how many home users here running linux don't know there root password. With a lot of distros you are prompted for the root password when you attempt to do something that requires extra privileges. Its not like a home user isn't going to know what there root password is. If they wanted to the run code to begin with, they will enter the password and run it.

[Mac Medic]

Sure, if they're stupid enough to provide the password then so be it, they deserve it, but the fact that they'll know that code is trying to execute is enough to protect most users.