ReactOS is a Windows replacement. I'd take it any day over Chrome or Android for everyday use, especially since many of my daily needs are on Windows platforms.

"Reasons why Steam is still better than GOG."

pretty much the same thing, especially regarding the market share argument.

Hasn't stopped anyone from buying on GOG, has it?

Oh yeah?!? I was fighting the other day why our clients' CIFS mounts on fstab didn't work after a release upgrade.

Turned out it was because the Windows AD domain user (which is used for mounting those Windows CIFS partitions) needed to be presented in a different format in the newer release, so the old CIFS mount in fstab wouldn't work anymore... Took some time to figure that one out.

Anyway, I was talking about how e.g. USB memory sticks automount, without even touching fstab.

I don't see how all this really differs from Windows, really:

1. If you want to see some new partition in either Windows or Linux automatically every time you boot, you need to enable it so that it will automount in boot (on Windows you do it with the Disk Management utility, while on Linux you do it by editing the /etc/fstab).

2. USB memory sticks and USB hard drives seem to automount on both.

I wonder what the article meant by that? Is he talking about how to install software with package managers (either with text commands or with a graphical tool), or if you choose to compile and install something from a source code?

This now occurred to me as I saw this Windows-related video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxr7m8wDeGA

So in short, Windows is getting a global package manager (winget) which oddly sounds just like Linux package managers like apt, yum/dnf, pacman, what have you... You even use it from the command prompt (but I am sure there will be graphical frontends for it too, just like there are for Linux package managers).

That video says how great it is you can get even freeware software from a global repository and the package manager even updates all your software with one command. Woohoo, just like in Linux!

And I thought installing software in Linux is counter-intuitive and complicated, yet Windows is now copycatting Linux on that?

Maybe the article felt that the "intuitive" way of installing Windows programs is downloading an .exe file, and then double-clicking it and the application gets installed. Ok... but how is it simpler than e.g. downloading a .dep or .rpm file, and then double-click it to install the Linux application? Heck, that deb can even add the needed third-party repositories for you so that that installed applications gets updated too, whenever you want to update all your Linux applications (and the Linux system itself) with e.g. apt upgrade?

Sometimes it feels the Linux way is considered worse only as long as Windows hasn't adopted a similar feature yet. And when it does, suddenly it is the bestest thing ever, just because Windows has it too now.

I use uMatrix mostly to control the cross-domain requests done by the websites I visit. Lynx (or Links, or ELinks) does not provide this kind of control.

Actually it’s the requirement of uBlock + uMatrix that directed my choice of Web browser (Firefox), not the other way around.

Sounds good, win10 is getting better and better.
Even if win already had package manager just not built in.
Win is so good it even takes okay features from linux and make it better.

What else is more intuitive than run an EXE file? Maybe click install in a client like Steam or Galaxy.

Yep you can download .deb and then fail to install it on arch, not intuitive at all.

Linux still needs to copycat many win10 features to be acceptable as a modern gaming platform.
If only they would stop making new distros all the time and start focusing on features and bug fixes.

It depends entirely what are your requirements or goals.

For example: If I want to work or play games, I use Windows; If I want to use internet safely, I use BSD.
I don't know why I would ever want to use Linux (or Mac).

well we are on a gaming site, so on this forum just assume it is for mainly gaming os recommendation
for other use I would even suggest linux is better
like an os for a 10 years old laptop for grandpa , sure linux would be fine

Yeah, for gaming I use Windows and DOS. Linux is not really meant for gaming in my opinion.

The problem with this is that Linux users aren't going to be truthful about their operating system.

First, pretty much every advantage of linux software is generic to open source in general, and there are many projects that support both windows and Linux.

Second, just because software is open source doesn't mean you can compile it for your brand of linux without any issues. As usual, the claims linux fixes all is actually extended support fixes all, and some times code stops getting updates... open source only means if you are inclined to then you can go figure out what the problems are and try to fix them, or update the code to use a modern toolkit if you have problems. Most people don't notice these issues since they've only stayed with linux a short time and stuck with the most popular software.

Heck, even one of the most touted "abilities" to download different programs and run them is easily doable on any operating system. That's what linux users call downloading a different file manager (explorer), or downloading a different application launcher (start menu). Or downloading a bunch of command line utilities, unixutils. It's amazing how much fuss Linux users make over this ability to download new programs.... like any other OS can't do the same exact thing. You can easily use software like Catfish on windows, it's just a program!


At the end of the day, all OS's with a desktop environment are basically the same. You don't get any real advantages with one or the other. Compatibility with programs designed for a different OS is why people tend to stick with one over the other.

... Except when you plug external drive or click on ISO file.

And that one is actually very bad example. Linux is far better than windows in dealing with filesystems. You can mount any filesystem ever existed for more or less common computers in last 40 years. While in windows - just try to open a hard drive from Mac or some *nix system. Bummer... Microsoft suffers from NIH syndrome a little less acute than Apple one.

Also "latest and greatest" isn't the same as "latest AAA title protected by super intrusive kernel mode anticheat". Also it's a matter of taste.
The number of of "greatest" games that can be played on Linux is bigger than number of titles on all previous generation consoles. Especially if we'll count not only native but windows and DOS titles which run perfectly.

If you'll just say that windows is better platform for games specifically it will be true. Much more native games.
But Linux is a viable gaming platform for someone who use machine primarily for everyday internet etc. stuff, work and plays some games sometimes.
For me it's even simplier - i'm typing this on a Linux laptop which i'm using for most of things i need PC for, but it also got about 1.2Tb games installed. And to the right i have Windows laptop that got nothing but games and a few system utilities. Also 3 desktops - Linux, Windows and dual boot. I use desktops mostly for work and running games that are waay too much for any laptop to be played at very high/max settings.

Objectively, that article is full of "onesidedness"(?) and half-truths, so let's quickly go through it (I mean, IF we're serious about this). This reads more like a sloppy and crippled essay than a proper article. He's either ignorant or a troll.

1. Lack of Software
There's always an alternative on Linux in one way or the other. Otherwise WINE or using Windows in a VM is an option.

Almost like the writer is afraid to consider the notion that there really are other types of cars out there, that might look and behave differently... though, I understand the users point - the unknown is very scary!

I mainly stick to Windows because of old habit, but the phrase "everything works" is like saying no cars have troubles between they're bought and until they end up in the graveyard. ALL software, especially in an environment like a computer made by millions of people spanning different countries, companies and time, among millions of lines of codes, have bugs/problems. If it can go wrong IT will go wrong soon rather than later. (Also, this part doesn't belong here under "lack of software". Availability of alternative to that particularity software, and how it actually works (or doesn't) are not the same thing.)

Bottomline - lack of software is like saying there's lack of different cars out there also. We both have machines that goes on Diesel or Gasoline, but they all offer the same feature of getting you from A to B (or do the same work).

Image and effect manipulation, compression/decompression, mail and office all exists in other alternatives. Protocols or fileformats support for smtp or 7zip/zip (respectively) are NOT confined to single programs (and Windows doesn't own them either).

2. Software updates.
Just look at Windows' updates and the fact that Microsoft has flat out told people that even normal users are testing unstable updates. Again, problems can occur on everything, even in the hard cased dog from Boston Dynamics. Linux have come along way, let's not forget that.

And seriously, what have software updates got to do with popularity?!? O_o

Oh yeah, in almost every cases you don't need to reboot on Linux. Perhaps restarts a program but that's it.

3. Distributions
Again I fail to see the logic here. We do have different cars to choose from. Is that a negative now?

The different Windows version can be almost as different, especially Home vs Enterprise and N version.

The core of the Linux (kernel and tools) are mostly the same through the different distributions. Also, let's not forget that Linux (in different sizes, forms and types) are dominating the electronical computer marked.

4. Bugs
See the other answers.
Besides, with the source millions of people have access to help crushing them, while Microsoft have a limited engineers and have been known to not take certain things seriously.

Closed source still is a problem in a free world (free speech, not as free beer).

5. Support.
Windows and Linux support alike can be obtained "anywhere".

Further, since one have access to the source code and/or the ability to change "everything" on Linux, you can more easily pinpoint a problem and fix it directly yourself if you don't want to wait until someone else does fix it. In Windows, it's not so easy. MS is the only company that can change anything deep here. All you can hope to do is to change a setting here and there but everything is either hidden from you (even as an Admin) or it's buried under layers of layers of unnecessary UI.

Troubleshooting a computer is troublesome for non-skilled people regardless if it's Windows or Linux. At least using Linux makes you want to learn something instead of being lazy and where everything is not put under the hood or hidden from you.

Again, regardless of the OS, if you're not willing to read/learn or are incapable of fixing it yourself, you need to physically seek out a "tech center" to help you anyway.

6. Drivers
Windows users might get new drivers faster, however, EVERYTHING comes included in a linux distro (and in the same repository). There's almost never a reason to go outside to find another. Sounds more like Dan Price haven't tried or even investigated anything before writing this "article".

Again, this "everything works on Windows"-trope is just oversimplifying it.

I've had trouble with a WIFI dongle ones in many years now which meant I needed to manually install and config it myself, that got fixed later with an update. I'll note, it was stable in both cases on Linux. But, the same dongle can some times drive me insane on Windows. Even by rotating the driver versions, it still cuts of the connection to the router from time to time. Ergo, it's much more unstable on Windows (same goes for BT and USB3 in general).

Actually, as a user, you do get better support as a whole since all drivers and software are tailored to that specific distribution. Can't make that in Windows with the same success because it's too fragmented.

7. Games
Now, I'm no game developer but I've heard rumors that f.ex DX12 is "easier" than Vulkan, but to be honest, Vulkan is quite new and openGL isn't much preferred on bigger projects like huge games. As far as I know, there are no other real alternatives to these APIs.

However, as long as one is isn't trying to play a game with a pre-dx vesion of 8, it often works. Proton makes it possible to play the latest big games, and in some cases, Proton seems to work better and faster than running the game same on Windows.

This section is the only one that have any validity to the writers point in this "Linux vs Windows article". It often takes a little more to make a game run here, but for obvious reasons (the dx API is proprietary!).

8. Peripherals
This should be under drivers.
Again, drivers fecking up is a problem everywhere, Linux and Windows a like. But it's more valid back towards the early 2000s/2010s. On Linux you install and everything works WITH drivers (for the most part). Installing Windows will leave you without any drivers, which you need to install manually (though, Win10 has a bigger cache of drivers than earlier versions).

9. Complicated
Both OS' are complicated and different in their own way, but Windows have gotten a lot more bloated, contrived and unintuitive while Linux have gotten better on every fronts.

My own mother thought it seemed "hard" and "complicated" scanning and manipulating pictures of her artworks before I guided her through the process. Soon after she even learned a trick or two I didn't know about.

Changing a Windows OS is almost like learning it again (especially from XP, to this Metro thing), while in Linux it's the same commands and tools (exception was going from rc to systemd) like it has been always. It's also faster to do setup and do changes in Linux via commands, while in Windows it's like a jungle. (Also, have anyone seen how HUGE the books for Windows are compared to those for Linux?)

Personally, enter in a command or changing a text file is heck of a lot faster and simpler than going through pages of pages of doing "simple things" in Windows(now that's complicated).

10. Linux is hard or installing is hard...
Try going back to the 90's and tell us how it is today... Windows was also "harder". It's called evolution. :D
Troubleshooting a faulty automatic power switch if you don't know how to change it or have even seen it is also hard.

Just like a car - doing some maintenance is not complicated, only if you try to fiddle with the engine. Again, it all comes down to how much you want to do it yourself and learn. It's all relative.

No, even installing Gentoo has gotten a lot easier, and Ubuntu/Mint is like installing Windows (at least with Linux you're not "pushed" to have an internet connection (at least twice) or sift through pages of telemetry/privacy options).

EDIT: I find it curious he didn't even touch privacy, security and control... or, that Microsoft have tried to "mimic" Unix/Linux for years, and are now even implementing common Linux tools into Windows. Or, the core principles of free open source vs propriety when it comes to sharing and learning (I'm conveniently running past the open sw vs free sw here). Or, that Linux supports more, especially when one need a kernel that is made for media (lower latency scheduler).

Reading this it's also a distinct possibility he wants to steer up some dust on the old "flame". Anyway, makeuseof.com isn't as relevant today as it was and it shows in how outdated this so-called "article is"... :D

I agree....

But have to ask, did you register to write that post?

How are you able to fit that much on a laptop?

(Also, how are you able to find that many games to fill that space?)

Actually, a better analogy would be this:
* Both Windows and Linux keep stuff under the hood.
* On Windows, that hood, or most of it, is hard to open (and may be under lock and key that you don't have). On Linux, by contrast, the hood is easy to open and it's easy to dig around inside.

I would argue that OpenGL is still relevant, as it's much easier to write OpenGL code than it is to write Vulkan code. In Vulkan, even drawing a single triangle (the "hello world" of 3d graophics) takes hundreds of lines of code, while for modern OpenGL a couple dozen would likely be sufficient. (Legacy OpenGL, which assumes a fixed function pipeline, takes even less.)

(On the other hand, one drawback of OpenGL is that there are many outdated tutorials that are for obsolete versions of OpenGL that, for example, only support the fixed function pipeline that's now considered obsolete.)

By the way, it's worth noting that Vulkan and DirectX 12 are more similar to each other than they are to OpenGL and DirectX 11 respectively.

(Vulkan and DirectX 12 are low level APIs, so it's reasonable to expect OpenGL and DirectX 11 implementations to be able to run on top of them. In fact, DXVK does just that; it's an implementation of DirectX 11 that runs on top of Vulkan.)