Facebook Plunges Again
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Cage Match: Ubuntu Linux Vs. Windows Vista
With Ubuntu 7.04 Feisty Fawn released last week, bloggers, journalists, and users are asking the inevitable question: How does it compare with the other major OS update this year, Windows Vista. Serdar Yegulalp at Information Week have written up a detailed comparison of the two operating systems. We have to agree with most of the points made. Here's the bullet point version, with our two cents thrown in at the end:
- Installation is pretty easy with both operating systems. Insert a disc, answer a few questions, and wait up to an hour. The point may be moot for some users, since most new machines will come preloaded with Vista. Since Ubuntu is a LiveCD you can also just pop the disc in and try out the operating system before deciding whether to install it.
- While Ubuntu 7.04 does a better job than many Linux distributions at automatically recognizing hardware, Vista's Device Manager is easier to use for computer novices who are attaching less common hardware to their PC.
- Adding and removing programs is pretty easy on both operating systems. One benefit to Ubuntu is that you can browse the add/remove program dialog to find Ubuntu-recommended software rather than surfing the web to find programs.
- Both operating systems make it easy to get online, browse the web, and use email.
- Ubuntu comes with OpenOffice preinstalled, which gives it an Office suite right out of the door. Of course, Windows users can download OpenOffice themselves for free.
- Both Ubuntu and Vista come with programs for ripping CDs and managing audio, video, and picture files.
- Neither system has a great backup solution. Or rather, Vista's shadow copy function is nice, but it's not available in all versions of the operating system. Of course, you can find plenty of 3rd party solutions for both backing up your data on both platforms.
Vista still has a bit of an edge on the user-friendly front here. Too often, you need to open up a terminal in Ubuntu and type in some arcane commands or edit a configuration file in order to get things working the way you'd like.
Sure, the only reason some of these actions are more intuitive in Vista is because most of us have been using Windows for years. But that does mean there's a learning curve for anyone switching to Ubuntu or any other Linux distribution.
If you handed a PC preloaded with either operating system to someone who's never used a computer before, they'd probably find plenty to like in each one. And Ubuntu 7.04 is definitely a step in the right direction when it comes to making Linux easier to use from the get go. If you're not a power user, (Hi, welcome to DownloadSquad), you may never need to use the command line in Ubuntu, because the preinstalled software covers most of the basic functions you'll ever need, including word processing, web browsing, email and music management.
Comments
31
Subscribe to commentsTonyApr 29th 2007 8:49PM
P.S. If anyone has any info or can help with doing an Installation on a machine that already has XP in the NTFS file system, please feel free to say so. OR, send useful info to crackheadtigerdrunkendragon@yahoo.com ( Yeah...that's my junkmail account, so let the spam flow.)
Adam talksApr 29th 2007 7:52AM
I installed Ubuntu a few months ago. It wasn't this release, but the one before.
For some reason, I was expecting a speed gain over Windows XP.
In fact, Ubuntu ran slightly slower than XP on my machine. So I reverted back to Windows. Maybe someday..
BobApr 29th 2007 7:52AM
ubuntu rocks, vista s**ks
www.mininova.wordpress.com
dgrantApr 29th 2007 2:09PM
You would start hearing about a lot more exploits running around for both of them. If you're gonna right a virus or you're a script kiddie, might as well go after the 4 in 5 chance operating systems. 80% market share and thats a conservative effort.
I hear this all the time. But consider this: although Macs represent only about 5% of the insatalled base, essentially 100% of Macs run _no_ anti-malware at all. If the bad guys could infect/compromise/commandeer 5% of the _world's_ computers with no worries about getting blocked or detected, why wouldn't they? Maybe, just maybe, its because the MacOS really _is_ secure and they haven't been able to find a way to get in. Just a thought.
JamesApr 30th 2007 1:10PM
Tony: I don't think it's a great idea to install Linux on NTFS -- AFAIK, the drivers just aren't as stable as the ones for Linux native systems, like ext2/3 or reiser. My advice: back up to another computer if you have one, or buy an external hard drive (they're pretty cheap nowadays), then repartition the drive using a GParted Live CD -- that thing rocks. Just shrink the NTFS XP partition and make a second empty partition to install Ubuntu on.
Of course, like the poster a few comments back said, try the LiveCD first, since you don't have to reformat to do that.
glaciaApr 30th 2007 6:38PM
Clarion, actually it sounds like you do understand them. The attitude of the users is simply an extension of the developers/company. Both Apple and Linux developers have decided that they will avoid mention of their own product in favor of attacking MS and insulting Windows users. I think if they looked into it they repel at least as many people as they attract with the strategy. However I've heard from many Mac & Linux users that they're perfectly happy with a small marketshare so perhaps that too is the strategy
Cliff AllredApr 30th 2007 8:47PM
I installed Ubuntu on my laptop and liked it. But I couldn't use my wireless card so I switched back to Windows.
www.cliffisblogging.wordpress.com
MichaelMay 1st 2007 11:26AM
@Sim
Market share is part of, but not the only reason for the lack of exploits in Ubuntu and other Linux distributions. Unix started out as the backbone of the Internet before Microsoft started leveraging their market share to break into servers. Exploits have grown exponentially after that.
There are a few proof of concept viruses for Mac and Linux in the world, but none appear in the wild. Why? Because they're not cost-effective. Both Mac and Ubuntu use a Debian base, meaning an exploit for Debian puts about (I'm guessing) 10% of the computers in the world at risk. How many computers are there in the world? Billions? 10% of a billion computers is still a hundred million computers. That's a lot of resources by anyone's standards. So, why aren't they targets?
Security in Linux is tighter than Windows. Period. It's not cost effective to target non-Windows systems because they don't have the same vulnerabilities. Unix was designed with three layers: the kernel layer, the application layer and a security layer between them. Microsoft wrote their operating system without the security layer so applications would have faster access to system resources. And it worked, but at a price. Applications load faster in Windows than in Linux, but the lack of that security layer means Windows will always be a bigger target than Linux even if market share conditions were reversed.
Don't buy into the FUD that Windows is a target purely because of market share. Yes, market share makes Windows extremely attractive, but if it were written correctly there wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar cottage industry built up around protecting it.
gblsMay 3rd 2007 9:05PM
@dgrant
The biggest problem that I have with what you have said about security in the Linux world vs. the Windows world is that you refer to Macintosh. This is problematic since Mac OS X runs using Darwin, a BSD variant, which has little to nothing to do with the Linux kernel. I think that we all are aware of the security of BSD. The question is this: Is LINUX more secure than Windows? My answer: Probably.
JamieMay 19th 2007 9:15PM
I use Feisty Fawn, OpenSuse 10.2, Xandros, Freespire, OS X, Vista (in the form of Longhorn at the moment) and XP. Any of us can argue in a billion directions about which is better. Simple fact, what's right for you may not be right for someone else. Personally, I love Linux, and very rarely have to do anything in Terminal... the command line for those of you not into Linux. I had an issue with certain Wireless cards in Linux, and they can be a pin in the butt... but generally speaking, if you set it up, then reboot, it's there.
For those of you screaming about hardware incompatibility issues in Vista... that's not Vista, it's the hardware manufacturer. They will get it together soon. Vista is a big improvement over XP and ME. Albeit it will be hard to beat 2K SP4.
Long story short, They are all strong where they need to be, and weak in places where we wish they weren't. We will never catch up to technology, but PLEASE, everyone... remember Windows 95!!! We've come a LOOOOOOONG way since then.
(All of this being said, nothing beats free (as in speech and beer!!!!)
Arnold L JohnsonMay 26th 2007 2:34PM
I dual boot MS XP and Ubuntu 7.04. I really like Ubuntu and have not had any problems with it except for 64-bit issues. I have seen Vista and would like it except for the way MS goes about protecting their market share in both hardware and software. Ubuntu seems to be good for all my computing needs and lets me continue to own my computer. I like the fact that Linux is steadily evolving and open to development in the community and at the same time offering a typical package assortment across a number of distributions. It seems also that users are habitual, picky and opinionated based on personal success or failure with an OS. The expectation and demand that an OS should just work on any and all hardware is unreasonable given the variety of stuff out there and the property rights protection argument. Ubuntu has done a good job growing up in a world of propriety, closed development, and marketing dominance to offer the besieged and bewildered user with a refreshing alternative choice. While mileage may vary, I am riding in style with Ubuntu 7.04. So far my opinion of Vista is based on what I have heard from early users and seen on one computer. It looks nice. It has issues. It cost too much. I know Vista will improve but so will Linux. So I hope you gather that I am in the Linux camp.