Thanks for great post Charles. Couldn't say it better myself.Charles said:Agreed. Comparing Windows and Linux is in some sense pointless. Each OS has its strengths and weaknesses. Windows is great for plug and play experience (think about the number of devices and hardware configurations Windows supports out of the box...). Linux is still more of an "academic" OS, but less so than, say, EROS or especially Singularity... The Linux kernel has some rather excellent features and the fact that it is light weight (compared to Windows kernel) means that the Linux kernel can run on a variety of low memory devices. With Windows 7 we are seeing Windows move into the smaller footprint world and this bodes well for future iterations of Windows.Erisan said:*snip*
Personally, I think the Linux developer community is composed of very talented, bright and passionate people. From an OS point of view, I've been impressed by the innovations arising from of one of the worlds largest open source projects.
I'd really love to see less of the Us versus Them mantra and focus on reality: general purpose operating system architecture and design are complex engineering endeavours and the complexity increases with the increase in number of installed instances running in many, many different hardware configurations.
It's unfair to proclaim that Windows sucks and Linux is great or that Windows is great and Linux sucks. Fact is, neither of these operating systems are poorly designed and implemented (that's just ignorant thinking). Further, they don't target the same demographic, not really, so why compare apples to oranges? Sure, from a system design perspective there are core similarities (monolithic kernel, etc), but there are also many differences and these are based on requirements and usage scenarios demanded and expected by their users. I think it's more than fair to say that Windows has a broader set of users than any of the Linux derivatives. More users doesn't just mean more users. It means more requirements to meet, more expectations to satisfy, more configurations to run on, more devices to support, etc. It really is rocket science.
Windows is a very solid general purpose operating system that must support tens of thousands of devices and hardware configurations by default, by design. Further, Windows must maintain a high level of compatibility across generations and this alone is an incredibly complex problem and is the number one reason Windows can't evolve faster (it's a big part of why Windows versions fail or succeed). Linux has it's own problems to solve that impact its evolutionary speed, but rediculously large numbers of devices to support out-of-box and enabing many thousands of applications to run across OS versions are not major factors, not in comparison to Windows.
Linux is a great general purpose kernel. Windows is great general purpose kernel. It follows that neither suck. These are two general purpose operating systems with their own goals, requirements, usage scenarios, etc.
All of this is, of course, equally true in the OS X vs Windows game...
One aspect of C9 I really like is that people are able to discuss about different OSs. That is something you can't do for example in our local Ubuntu forum. They are so anti-MS that it isn't even funny. OK, the avarage age of users there is about 16 years (there was a poll) but still ...