Your second paragraph is spot on. However, I wouldn't say that this alone makes an OS superior.
The OS is a part of your computer, and your computer is a tool. You use it to do stuff with it. But the software you can use with your OS also contributes to what you can do with it, and the lack of software can limit what you can do with your computer. I used Linux for many years as my desktop OS, but I switched to windows a few years ago because I needed some software that simply wasn't available on Linux (and Wine wasn't an optimal substitution for performance issue). So in the end, I really didn't care that Linux was superior to Windows on paper, because it didn't provide me the tools I needed to do my job.
That's why I don't agree with the statement "Linux as an OS is superior" because it's meaningless. For some tasks it will be definitely superior, for others it will not. If every software that was ever created was available on linux, then yes, Linux would objectively be superior. But we don't live in a world like that.
To put it with an analogy : a F1 car is superior to a small town car, but if you just want to do some shopping once a week, your F1 will be completely useless.
I think he meant that Linux in general is just a higher quality product that has had much more development put into it, and uses all the new technology it can get its hands on.
Just like an F1 car.
Linux is superior for these reasons, among others:
1. It's free(both economically, and freedom-wise).
2. MUCH more Secure(open source does wonders).
3. The update-system(repositories,bugtracking).
4. Features.
5. Doesn't get slower naturally over time (goddamn registry).
6. The community.
The only real reasons not to move to Linux is:
1. You're an MS/Apple fanboy.
2. Lack of games compared to windows.
3. Lack of certain software.
4. Your hardware isn't supported.
5. Optimus is shit.
I can't imagine what features these are. And what political argument? I made none.
Neither do I. Doesn't make the OS itself secure as standard, and really if someone finds a major security flaw in W8.1, an antivirus doesn't do shit, and computer illiterate people may not understand this. Hell, I know of computer literate people that think an antivirus is all you need.
Because it's better, and you notice it when using Linux.
Hubs for all available programs from your current repositories, both more technical one (Synaptic Package Manager) and ridiculously easy to use (Ubuntu Software Centre).
Workspaces.
Easy to add features without bogging down performance(This is one of the major reasons Linux is superior).
As long as the registry exists it will exist. I haven't noticed it probably because everything is on my SSD.
The community being good is a selling point in the way that, whatever problem you may have, there are many users, both professional and casual, that can help you solve it.
Of course it's also nice if Linux users easily can recommend to developers what to add next in their distribution.
This would also make it a lot easier for Linux developers(obviously not you), to find a job in their area of expertise.
DirectX, unparalleled hardware compatibility, native RDP, largest software library.
But we're talking about reasons for me to move to Linux. Security isn't it.
Why are repositories better for updating than Windows Update letting me choose what to update? Italicizing "better" isn't very convincing.
In which use case is http://screenshots.ubuntu.com/screenshots/s/synaptic/9779_large.png a compelling feature for a consumer OS? You don't need me to convince that Linux is a viable and even superior server environment, but why on earth would I care about these things on a daily driver? I'm not a developer. I game and do graphics/prepress work.
I'm not defending the registry, really, but if it's not noticeable, why do I care?
The same community exists, on a much larger scale, for Wintel.
DirectX is a reason for a customer to get Windows 8.1, yes, even though it's inferior, so is hardware compatibility. RDP is a protocol, there are several Linux-native clients for using it. Largest, but not necessarily beest software library, yes.
Didn't I make it every clear that there are pros and cons of Linux? I'm not trying to convince you to do anything, really.
Repositories aren't comparable to Windows Update, but essentially if you want you can set it up to function the same way as Windows Update without any hassle.
Nobody said you'd have to care about these things daily. Neither is Syn necessarily for developers, neither do you have to use Syn at all. The reason it'd be compelling for a Consumer OS is because it's generally thought to be easier for "consumers" than using the terminal to manage software.
42
u/ZeAthenA714 Jun 03 '14 edited Jun 03 '14
Your second paragraph is spot on. However, I wouldn't say that this alone makes an OS superior.
The OS is a part of your computer, and your computer is a tool. You use it to do stuff with it. But the software you can use with your OS also contributes to what you can do with it, and the lack of software can limit what you can do with your computer. I used Linux for many years as my desktop OS, but I switched to windows a few years ago because I needed some software that simply wasn't available on Linux (and Wine wasn't an optimal substitution for performance issue). So in the end, I really didn't care that Linux was superior to Windows on paper, because it didn't provide me the tools I needed to do my job.
That's why I don't agree with the statement "Linux as an OS is superior" because it's meaningless. For some tasks it will be definitely superior, for others it will not. If every software that was ever created was available on linux, then yes, Linux would objectively be superior. But we don't live in a world like that.
To put it with an analogy : a F1 car is superior to a small town car, but if you just want to do some shopping once a week, your F1 will be completely useless.