Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 9.10 - Strengths and weaknesses

jimbo45 said:

Hi there

I thought he DID work for Gartner.

At least you could have included the Windows CONS

1) No decent scripting or Shell (like Bourne or C-shell in Linux)
2) No CRONTAB (for automatic launching of jobs / scripts)
3) You can't run Windows with a disconnected terminal -- you can start a linux server and then unplug the monitor -- your server will just keep running -- if you need to enter a command either do it remotely or re-plug in the monitor again on the local machine.
4) No Choice of GUI (or NONE if you don't want to start the X-server in Linux).

jimbo

1. Im pretty sure PowerShell is revered for being so robust and revolutional in the world of Windows.
2. Funny, I've been using scheduled tasks for years to launch jobs and scripts.
3. You can absolutely unplug a monitor and keep using Windows. Have you ever heard of remote desktop or WinRM? Or the fact that PowerShell 2.0 allows remote management?
4. You do have a choice in GUI/No GUI if you are talking servers, because Server Core doesnt have a GUI. Why the heck would anyone with a CLIENT OS not want a GUI?

AvatarOfTheShip said:

Linux in general lacked an NTFS filesystem driver for a long time. Then they had read but not write access. Now they're all-singing all-dancing

Certain live distros like ubuntu, Knoppix, and Puppy Linux have been able to access and recover files from Fat16, 32 and NTFS volumes when booted live for years now. There's a few articles on how to do that while booted live from a cd.

In fact a usb flash drives were set aside here with distros installed to bail someone out if the occasion arises on any XP, Vista, or now 7 system. The latest 9.10 x86 will go right on the Virtual Box while it takes the Portable Virtual Box to see the 64bit Linux or even one of the RCs installed and run on a virtual drive there.

But taking everything into consideration the main OS still ends up being 7!

johnwillyums said:

IWould a triple boot be easy?

Yes. I'm currently multi-booting 5 OS'es, with ubuntu installed last.

If you opt to install Ubuntu on it's own partition (as opposed to using the WUBI installer) the Grub2 boot loader automatically adds the Windows 7 boot loader to the list.

whs said:

I run Ubuntu and Win7 in virtual partitions (virtual Box) on a Vista host. I think that is the ultimate because I can switch between those systems in no time. Have to admit that I still have trouble with Ubuntu because for me it is not very user friendly. I installed it out of curiousity but don't intend to use it for any serious work. For me, Vista is the ultimate - but you need a lot of muscle in your system.

Glad to hear someone still thinks highly of Vista! The first thing found with the previous version was stability over what it followed.

I was able to convince someone running the 64bit Ultimate edition to give the 64bit RC a try. He ended up hosting a 7 launch party! He swore by Vista until running the RC and now the retail 7.

Ubuntu, Puppy, Knoppix, and a few of the small distros are usually the easiest to run. You simply have to get used to a different OS platform while the desktops have been made to look closer to Windows.

The one thing about the "cons" seen with Linux not mentioned in the article was downloading a distro in rar files! This is where you install and run the distro off of the drive not burn to disk or write to a flash drive. The same can also be said for the Linux drive tool GParted where you can either download that in iso or zip files.

TechieJustin said:

So burning an ISO is a con?

I guess that's why Windows will never have native support for burning ISO's.

Windows 7 has native support for burning ISO's.

Burn Disc Image - ISO or IMG file