Linux Won't Work On Systems Running Windows 8?

pingjockey said:
I disagree especially from an enterprise perspective. I lead a team of engineers supporting roughly 4000 windows servers and 99 percent of the time I never have an issue. IIS runs fine, along with MS SQL server and other things.

Windows server 2008 R2 as well as Server 2003 R2 have come a long way since the days of NT and Server 2000 and are extremely stable and perform very well when properly maintained.

When things go bad for Windows (or any OS I might add) is when proper configuration management is not followed. I can't tell you how many times I have seen something break because someone either makes an unauthorized change or fails to fully understand what a planned change is going to do.

With all that being said, there are quite a number of things that windows can't do that Linux is very good at. The embedded device area is certainly one as well as bare metal virtualization.

XEN and VMware have the bare metal hypervisor locked right now with Hyper-v slowly bringing up the rear. Although with the release of Server 8 I would expect that to change slightly.

As for the embedded market, I don't think we are going to see that change anytime soon as embedded windows will never really work on consumer routers or anything else like that for a while.

Again though this is just my opinion...
Click to expand...

Well i would never say that you can not use Windows in a server environment, just saying that Linux still is better. On a smaller scale of course I have a server running for over 10 years that is handling internet connection on a machine booting from a floppy which allows clients at the center to use 8 to 10 computers for browsing and such.

I have yet to hear any complaints,t as you might guess this is something which Linux handles much better then windows could even tho you could do it on windows.....

@Modred189

In every day use I can not find anything that draws me back to installing windows (for several years now)...
 
Desktop market: Who fucking cares? 99.999% of the People who buy desktops from people like dell don't put Linux on them.

Laptop market: This could be an issue, but then again it's not like you'll ever find all the drivers you'd need anyways.
 
Ashbringer said:
I've used Android since the G1 and I've seen nothing about a sluggish UI. I've used iOS devices as well, but I can't see any real difference. The only thing that came up as slow to me was web browsing, which iOS devices beat Android hands down. That is, until I installed Dolphin HD.

Then again I had CM7 running on my old G1. My cousins Droid 2 is running CM7. My new Cliq 2 is running Gingerbread. I don't keep many phones stock. Not for more then a week anyway.
Click to expand...

So you were using a Custom ROM and that's not really comparable then, that's like comparing a Jailbroken iPhone to a Vanilla iPhone.

Every Droid X or Droid 1/2 I've used has had a horribly sluggish UI, granted a lot of that could be tasks running that are soaking up resources but an end user shouldn't have to have that problem.

I was setting up Active Sync on someone's Galaxy the other day and I noticed an anti-virus program, the notion that you should even need a third party anti-virus software on a phone OS is crazy.

Ashbringer said:
Well, I've used WIndows Mobile 5 - 6.5 and I can tell you that was a horrible OS. I can't stand iOS, mainly cause it's locked down and unlocking it is full of problems. I unlocked and jailbroke a friends iPhone 2G for him, and I had to do way more stuff then I would like too. Plus, every time Apple updates iOS, you're screwed. Lets not forget that iPhones didn't originally come with SMS, multi-tasking, and the ability to change the background picture. It took Apple this long to catch up to even Windows Mobile functionality.

WP7 lost most of Windows Mobile functionality. For the most part, it's behind iOS in terms of functionality. No one even cares enough to even try to hack the OS, let alone use it.

Android works. If you used Windows Mobile like me, then Android makes a nice transition away from it. The only problem is installing applications onto the SD card, that requires a bit of extra work. Something I didn't have to worry about in Windows Mobile. Plus, unlike WP7 or iOS, there's a huge community of rom cookers that make Android awesome. I got addicted to custom roms with Windows Mobile, and I don't wanna quit with Android.

The difference between a custom rom and a stock rom is that with a stock rom I get applications like Amazon Mp3, where I can buy songs, or GPS software that I don't need cause I have Google's navigator. That crap is removed in custom roms, and they give me useful stuff that I do like. A file explorer, to actually explore the files on my root. Always comes rooted. Always has a different launcher, like LauncherPro or ADW. Custom themes, and lots of tweaks.

Sorry I got lost there. Why does Android suck again? :confused:
Click to expand...

Most of what would put WP7 behind Android/iOS will be resolved with Mango. I don't really have much else to say on that.

As I stated earlier I have no experience with using a custom rom on any Android phone, at some point (when my girlfriend upgrades her incredible) I'll play around with that and my opinion might change.

I never really said Android sucks, I said that I don't like it. Obviously they are doing something right as Android adoption rates are HUGE, that's also part of the reason why you are seeing virus/malware being pushed out for it, the other portion being it's open nature.

I support the "walled garden" approach that Apple and Microsoft are taking with their devices. That's a good thing for your average consumer and it keeps the quality up. I'm glad we have alternatives like Jailbreaking or ROM's though. I love my Jail broken iPad, and I never thought I'd see myself saying that.

Android could become fantastic and we'll see if that happens with Ice Cream Sandwich.

What do I know though, I'm still rocking two Blackberry's.

I think we are getting a little off-topic here, I started it so my bad. :D
 
TheBuzzer said:
is this for that gui bios thing?
Click to expand...

My last two Asus boards have UEF Bios's and I don't think they prevent Linux boot.

Even though I don't use Linux, I hope this isn't true or another lock-out move by Microsoft. You can damn sure bet there will be another investigation and possibly bring up a whole new anti-trust problem.

No one needs that shit.
 
kcmastrpc said:
20 years later and the linux vs. windows debate still rages on.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be about this anyway. It's about choice, and whether or not Microsoft is taking away that choice to force themselves on people. I don't know if that's the case right now, but if it is they deserve the FTC right back up their ass.

You would think they would learn eventually.
 
You would think they would learn eventually.
Click to expand...

The goalpost really isn't market dominance, although that's an easy argument. I think I'll stop there.

I don't know if that's the case right now, but if it is they deserve the FTC right back up their ass.
Click to expand...

We'll see.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
There is no debate , Linux has been kicking windows ass for a good few years now. Windows is relegated to an attempt at a Games Operating System with ability to burn cd/dvd from the OS.
Click to expand...

excuse me.. in WHAT WAY is linux kicking windows' ass? it runs sluggish on good hardware for a desktop environment, its needlessly complicated, supports less software, has fuck all market share, no business uses it aside from specific server tasks, home users hate it.

its a diehard fanboi OS for people trying to convince themselves that running linux makes them good at the computers or something. wanna talk linux for a server then i'll listen but ive tried many times to have linux as a viable desktop OS and it seriously suck donkey balls.
 
FFS even apple's OS (lepoard, tiger, gorilla or whatever) kicks linux's dead ass in desktop. more software, easier to use etc etc.
 
MaxPower742 said:
nubs who buy those kind of pc's probably shouldn't use linux anyway
Click to expand...

Exactly... Buy a PC with the OS you want on it... I think most of the Linux guys can easily build their own box and probably do or recycle some old hardware, which won't have this problem.

I don't disagree with Windows 8, BIOS, & Signed Code either. It makes things faster and I am perfectly okay with that. I run Windows. I bought a 250GB SSD to make my Dell 15Z run Windows faster. Any help Microsoft can offer is great.

I have a Macbook Pro. Guess what? It's primary purpose is to run Lion, so I can run XCode and develop Apps.

I am so sick of people thinking everything is a conspiracy theory.
 
Exavior said:
Thanks for posting this for everyone to see that they are making a planet out of a pimple.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. A motherboard manufacturer would piss off legions of buyers if they couldn't disable Secure Boot in the BIOS.

Much ado about nothing, folks.
 
Exavior said:
Thanks for posting this for everyone to see that they are making a planet out of a pimple.
Click to expand...

The point was that OEMs may not have this option enabled in UEFI... which would be advantagous for them in terms of easier support.
 
techrat said:
Pretty much. A motherboard manufacturer would piss off legions of buyers if they couldn't disable Secure Boot in the BIOS.

Much ado about nothing, folks.
Click to expand...

yeah but it wouldn't piss off 99.99% of dumb fuck Acer buyers.
 
gaspah said:
excuse me.. in WHAT WAY is linux kicking windows' ass? it runs sluggish on good hardware for a desktop environment, its needlessly complicated, supports less software, has fuck all market share, no business uses it aside from specific server tasks, home users hate it.

its a diehard fanboi OS for people trying to convince themselves that running linux makes them good at the computers or something. wanna talk linux for a server then i'll listen but ive tried many times to have linux as a viable desktop OS and it seriously suck donkey balls.
Click to expand...

This just shows that you are completely frustrated. Once you installed Linux and have the application running it is easy. The fact that OS without programs that run with kernel access and don't allow administrator mode are just a lot safer.

Market share doesn't mean a thing tho but if that is what keeps you happy running windows because it has market share, good for you :) .
 
Pieter3dnow said:
This just shows that you are completely frustrated. Once you installed Linux and have the application running it is easy.
Click to expand...

So you're saying it's ok (in fact, better) to have to jump through a bunch of CLI hoops, forum searches and posts and all kinds of other headache to get it to this "easy" state?

Thanks, but I'll take "easy" out of the box.
 
vengence said:
Desktop market: Who fucking cares? 99.999% of the People who buy desktops from people like dell don't put Linux on them.
Click to expand...

I'm not one of those Linux nuts who is constantly thinking that Linux is about to explode on the desktop. But, your stats are absurd. A significant number of people do experiment with Linux, even if nothing more than booting to a live CD. Further, Linux will be making gains in the future because it does continue to mature while Windows seems to have no place to go.
 
JamesL said:
Keep dreaming. Market share means a lot in this business.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with dreaming, look at all the applications that are out there most of them have a good Linux counterpart which doesn't cost you a thing.

@Modred189

Did I ever said you should ? Last time I installed Linux was on a HP netbook , didn't encounter any problems runs Opensuse 11.4 KDE 4 nicely. Was about a month ago, only thing i had to lookup were the graphics drivers for the brazos platform that was it.
 
Stone Cold said:
A significant number of people do experiment with Linux, even if nothing more than booting to a live CD.
Click to expand...
But what does that say? That means a lot of people have tried it and said "this is not for me"

Stone Cold said:
Further, Linux will be making gains in the future because it does continue to mature while Windows seems to have no place to go.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what this has to do with reality. Either you don't know how many machines run windows, and you don't watch the news, of you just live under a rock.
 
JamesL said:
Keep dreaming. Market share means a lot in this business.
Click to expand...

Well, what keeps people using Windows? There's a reason why market share doesn't matter.

Firstly, Windows is backwards compatible. Well, mostly. If you have applications from 10 years ago, and you want to use them, Windows will do the job easy. Linux does have Wine and does a great job with older Windows applications then Windows itself, but not modern applications and games. Modern applications either don't work, work with bugs, or work very slowly. Rarely you'll find an application to work perfectly 100%.

Second is the amount of applications . With Linux it's about which came first, the chicken or the egg. Can't have the egg without the chicken, and can't have the chicken without the egg. Linux is overflowing with open source applications, but not closed source. Nobody uses Linux, and therefore nobody makes Linux applications to sell. Yet, Nobody uses Linux cause nobody makes applications for it. Why you think so many people were excited about Steam coming to Linux? It might have been the key to breaking this ice for Linux applications. Course, there's no Steam for linux.

Finally, there's Microsoft. You think Microsoft wants something like a free OS to compete with their expensive OS? That's there entire business practically. Microsoft has done things in the past to discredit Linux and open source. If Linux actually became popular it would be the death of Microsoft.
 
Ashbringer said:
Well, what keeps people using Windows? There's a reason why market share doesn't matter.

Firstly, Windows is backwards compatible. Well, mostly. If you have applications from 10 years ago, and you want to use them, Windows will do the job easy. Linux does have Wine and does a great job with older Windows applications then Windows itself, but not modern applications and games. Modern applications either don't work, work with bugs, or work very slowly. Rarely you'll find an application to work perfectly 100%.

Second is the amount of applications . With Linux it's about which came first, the chicken or the egg. Can't have the egg without the chicken, and can't have the chicken without the egg. Linux is overflowing with open source applications, but not closed source. Nobody uses Linux, and therefore nobody makes Linux applications to sell. Yet, Nobody uses Linux cause nobody makes applications for it. Why you think so many people were excited about Steam coming to Linux? It might have been the key to breaking this ice for Linux applications. Course, there's no Steam for linux.

Finally, there's Microsoft. You think Microsoft wants something like a free OS to compete with their expensive OS? That's there entire business practically. Microsoft has done things in the past to discredit Linux and open source. If Linux actually became popular it would be the death of Microsoft.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If the photoshops, vegas', avids, premiers, and steams of the world ran natively under Linux a lot more people would use it, and those are all the apps BUSINESSES use.

Sure there are open source solutions for most of those products but the support generally isn't there and they don't really fit in a enterprise infrastructure. There's also really no way to centrally manage policies on a Linux domain. LDAP could easily replace AD but there's no Open Source variant of GPMC.

I'm a big proprietor of Linux, especially when it comes to servers but I completely understand the reason it hasn't made the splash in the desktop scene that some hope it will. All it would really take is one HUGE app to make the switch and that could possibly boost adoption rates and swing the boat into the open source corner.

Yes you could run those apps in something like WINE but the performance won't be there. Imagine running an Ubuntu VM + WINE + X-APP performance just wouldn't be there compared to a dedicated solution.
 
Ashbringer said:
Well, what keeps people using Windows? There's a reason why market share doesn't matter.

Firstly, Windows is backwards compatible. Well, mostly. If you have applications from 10 years ago, and you want to use them, Windows will do the job easy. Linux does have Wine and does a great job with older Windows applications then Windows itself, but not modern applications and games. Modern applications either don't work, work with bugs, or work very slowly. Rarely you'll find an application to work perfectly 100%.

Second is the amount of applications . With Linux it's about which came first, the chicken or the egg. Can't have the egg without the chicken, and can't have the chicken without the egg. Linux is overflowing with open source applications, but not closed source. Nobody uses Linux, and therefore nobody makes Linux applications to sell. Yet, Nobody uses Linux cause nobody makes applications for it. Why you think so many people were excited about Steam coming to Linux? It might have been the key to breaking this ice for Linux applications. Course, there's no Steam for linux.

Finally, there's Microsoft. You think Microsoft wants something like a free OS to compete with their expensive OS? That's there entire business practically. Microsoft has done things in the past to discredit Linux and open source. If Linux actually became popular it would be the death of Microsoft.
Click to expand...

??
I'm not sure if you were trying to support my point or argue against it.

You pretty much said what I was too lazy to say(points 1 & 2 in particular), except those points were going to support the fact that market share was exactly the reason why windows is dominating over linux. Nobody wants to develop free apps for a platform which only 5% of the population uses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top