|
Which OS is Right? All of Them. What is all this fighting about? What's wrong with simply agreeing that Linux, Windows, MacOS X, and FreeBSD all have good uses? A large part of the problem is bias. People who like one operating system rarely attempt to seriously use another, yet they have no qualms about loudly voicing their opinions. Frequently, the things said about various operating systems simply aren't true. We thought it would be fun to discuss a few of the most common arguments for or against the popular operating systems, with as little bias as possible.
First and foremost, there is always merit in talking about application availabilities. In Windows and MacOS X there's Photoshop, but you can't use them in Linux or FreeBSD. People will quickly point out that you can do many of the same things with Gimp, but everyone knows is just isn't the same. Likewise, there's really no video editing software on par with Premiere available for the free operating systems. These two applications, along with various games, are the common excuse for Linux users to keep a Windows installation around. Amazingly, Apple has managed to get tons of video games released for OS X. For Desktop Uses Speaking of video capabilities, which really means video games for most people; let's talk about Linux and games. You can play a few classic favorites on Linux, assuming you have a supported video card, but new video games aren't releasing Linux versions. Certain vendors won't release a driver for Linux, but certain other vendors do maintain a Linux driver. In short, if you want to play games, Linux or FreeBSD just aren't going to cut it. Depending on how passionate you are, OS X may not be enough, since many games never make it to OS X versions. We also like sound. Listening to music is almost fundamental to computing of any kind. There's the ALSA (Advanced Linux Sound Architecture) driver in Linux, which can be a troublesome sometimes. Its configuration isn't straightforward, but ALSA does work quite nicely in distributions that take care of everything for you. In FreeBSD, which supports everything Linux does, we've never seen a sound card fail to work after running "kldload snd_driver." You have to know the tricks, so the old adage: "Unix is very user friendly, it just chooses its friends conservatively" is certainly true. Experienced Linux users can get X windows working very quickly on most any hardware, but whether they admit it or not, they all remember a time when they spent days trying to get X working. When talking about desktop uses, the main focus should really be on the environment. Many Unix-based window managers are quite usable and efficient. Of course, you have to get used to using them. If you're used to Windows, there's the heavyweight Unix window managers, like KDE and Gnome, which are getting closer and closer to looking like Windows 2000 with every release. Microsoft has done many things right, and their desktop environment is definitely one of them. It may not be true that certain Linux window managers are emulating Windows, but you certainly can't deny that there are striking similarities. Assuming that a few Linux distributions have evolved in an isolated bubble, the only conclusion to be reached is that the "start menu and taskbar" design is really the best usable design. That is, until Apple released OS X. The desktop environment in OS X is arguably much better, and clearly doesn't emulate Microsoft. Keeping on task, there is one final can't-live-without feature that many people complain about: multiple desktop windows. Most Unix-like window managers support this, and Linux and FreeBSD users can't live without the ability to have multiple desktops. Windows and OS X both support this feature as well, and this seems to have remained a secret to the majority of users. Hardware Laptop support is getting to be quite mature in the main operating systems. But when using a laptop, one cannot live without wireless network access, right? Any wireless card you purchase will come with drivers for Windows, so it's pretty much a no-brainer. For Mac OS, most of Apple's hardware comes with built-in wireless that "just works." Sadly, OS X does suffer from lack of generic wireless card support. If you want to add an 802.11a card with the popular Atheros chip, you'll be stuck paying a third party $15 for a driver. SCSI and RAID cards are another major issue when considering purchases. They all work with Windows, or course, but only a few are incompatible with Linux or FreeBSD. That's just the way it goes, so choose your hardware wisely for maximum compatibility. IDE hot-swapping capabilities are also a current hot topic. Linux development lagged behind FreeBSD for a bit, but both operating systems now support yanking a swappable IDE drive without rebooting. Linux doesn't always play well with drivers of any sort, and especially not with wireless drivers. Even if you have a driver installed for a wireless card that is supported by it doesn't mean it will work. Pluggability is getting better, but there's still ample opportunity for frustration. In FreeBSD we've never seen, for example, an Atheros wireless card fail to work after adding the driver. Misconceptions The prevailing argument against using Windows for any given purpose is based upon security concerns. These arguments are well-founded, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to secure a Windows server. Performance arguments aside, there's really no reason you can't run a web server on any platform--Apache supports them all. Likewise, OpenBSD isn't any more secure than Linux or FreeBSD in the real world. If you think about it, the operating system itself isn't normally responsible for security breaches, it's the auxiliary applications that are to blame. Features are always evolving, and sometimes FreeBSD beats Linux to market, sometimes it's the other way around. Windows and OS X are battling it out too, albeit on another level. There are common misconceptions about every operating system, and advanced users try very hard to find every little feature that the competition lacks. In reality, the facts are almost never present in these arguments. Linux users are quick to point out that Windows (or more accurately, NTFS) doesn't support symbolic or hard links. Windows most certainly does support both types of file links. The list can go on and on, but in essence, the point is: you can use every operating system for nearly every purpose. Try each and decide which one works the best for your needs. Individual mileage may vary. |