windows is > than linux or is it?

[rabbit]

And it's not overloaded with extra shit I don't need.  I use only about 15% of all the crap that's installed with Windows.  With Linux, if I want something, I install it (easily, usually).  If I don't want something, odds are I don't have it.

[Warrior]

x86] link=topic=5935.msg70380#msg70380 date=1148225267]

Really, nothing is built into Linux. Slackware has a built in compiler, but not Linux in general (most distros do, but they're by no means required to).

You know..except the drivers that require a kernel compilation to be able to work. Talk about easy deployment!

Joe, leave the Linux talking to the gurus.

I suppose you've never heard of kernel modules.  They're (un)loadable drivers that can be inserted/removed from the kernel at any time. 

Warrior, leave the Linux taling to the gurus. 

Also, he's talking about software (ie, programs), not drivers. 

[/quote]

I've heard of them, however this isn't a widely used option in my experience. I don't claim to be a Linux guru, I don't like to insult myself. However the fact is that they talked about Linux being a minimalistic kernel.

Most distros come loaded with bullshit packages which a user isn't going to uncheck by default, you can argue that there are minimalistic distros but the same can go for Windows having minimalistic OSes.

LKM is a good idea but I'm doubting the stability they have, after all they do run in kernel space.

Additionally I'll admit the OS field is becoming more "Open" by the day but I don't necessarily agree with this. You can have a closed OS and still listen to the community, hell look at what's being done with IE7.  Windows is a great OS, regardless of what the company may or may not do it is still a dominant OS and I doubt that even if Linux DID have significant marketshare that they'd keep it for long. They just don't like the way of thinking which is sucessful to a home user.

I can't argue that Windows is faster because it isn't, but then again Linux and Windows make different choices architectually. If you look down on the hardware choices Linux makes vs the ones Windows makes it's easy to see which OS is geared for what.

[Newby]

And it's not overloaded with extra shit I don't need.  I use only about 15% of all the crap that's installed with Windows.  With Linux, if I want something, I install it (easily, usually).  If I don't want something, odds are I don't have it.

Uhh, a default installation of Slackware takes up 3GB, Windows takes up ~1GB tops. And Windows isn't packed with as much shit as Slackware is.

I can see where you can choose to make Slackware smaller, but uhh, Windows really doesn't have un-necessary stuff. This is in my experience, though.

[Warrior]

Well it all depends, I do however think it'd be nice to have Windows install things by package. (I actually think the installer lets you pick components to install though). Atleast IE7 is out of the OS now so the future might be brighter since you can choose it or not choose it. God knows how they didn't get snagged on Antitrust for packing IE with Windows.

[iago]

x86] link=topic=5935.msg70387#msg70387 date=1148241404]
I've heard of them, however this isn't a widely used option in my experience. I don't claim to be a Linux guru, I don't like to insult myself. However the fact is that they talked about Linux being a minimalistic kernel.

They're used for most drivers in my experience. 

[Warrior]

You probably know more so I won't try to argue this, however I would of seen it as a problem due to Novell's recent endeavor into a new driver standard for a more deployable solution.

[ZeroX]

The Free source code still gets me. I would much rather prefer Linux on a personal note for programming and such. But I tend to use XP for the next couple of months still since I need "My hand held" When it comes to this type of stuff. But Iam still in a debate about switching over.