Linux Vs Windows

I had one of those at my house last week. He installed new venetian blinds in the bedroom.

It's like one of the PLC programmers we have at work he avoids windows, linux and macs, won't get email, so when we replaced the 2 dos running 586 PC's controlling the machines to XP he was royally stuffed, we got the program to run in dos mode ok, but when he did an upgrade I near tore my hair out when to copy the files from the CD rom he opened a dos window, because he didn't know how to copy files between windows any other way. Shift dragging files just pissed him off even more
I should have seen if he could dos copy from a USB stick

I use lots of OSs. Mac, Windows, GNU/Linux, FreeBSD...

I prefer GNU/Linux (Ubuntu and its parent, Debian) for one reason: I find them fun =^_^=

But I try to choose the OS that fits the tasks the computer is going to perform. Macs have some very nice disk and video streaming so I recommend those to video editors. Windows sheer ubiquity in office environments gets them that niche, and it's about the only PC gaming platform out there that's as broadly supported. GNU/Linux is my choice for servers; with the right tweaks they're next to impossible to knock over.

I think that the only worthwhile reason for preferring one OS over another is that the thing does what you need it to in a way that fits you. =^_^=

LOL! I worked with a guy like that. Knew Everything but actually knew nothing.

My fav Windows-centric thing is Active Directory. He never heard of it.

That seems like a *very* odd statement to make, and even though I've heard similar statements by many others over the years I still don't quite understand what makes people say such things or what they mean by it.

I use Windows, and install exactly what I want to use. I don't see how Windows limits my choices in any way at all. Heck, I can even run a huge number of Linux progs and utils that I need for development using Cygwin on Windows, as well as Win ports of traditionally Linux-based progs such as MySQL/PHP/Apache, so I have more choices than I could possibly need.

How are you limited by "what some software company thinks I _should_ be using"?

.

Why does this bother you so much? Or him? Why do either of you care if the other prefers to use another method? It's not a big deal.

I'll do it both ways. I'll use folder windows if I have them open already, or I'm not exactly sure which files I need, or I need some random subset. I'll use the command line if I'm already in a shell window, or want a log of what was copied, or if I want a well-defined subset based on a bunch of patterns or other properties.

Hi

Windows or Mac or Linux ? Hmmm .. I have make change for 2 monath to Linux (Ubuntu) and I will not more back to Windows. Is not the question, windows, Mac or Linux. the is who is the best for myself and my make on my PC ;D

When system running ok, then not changing the System. That is a very old rule from all Admins ;D

Looks like some more linux users have joined the party. Poll is running almost neck & neck.

I want to add one thing. one of my favorite sayings I made up myself:

Linux does windows better than Windows wishes.

hehe I use Firefox, Thunderbird, Gaim (pidgin), Gimp, and Open Office on my win98 machine

Since I run on mediocre hardware Linux is often the only thing that runs bearably for me. I can't support the overheard of even XP nevermind Vista. For what it's worth Sabayon and Ubuntu weren't a whole lot better. To really get the benefits of Linux you have to really get into the inner workings and custom tailor. Direct compiling the kernel for the exact HW you have, and *only* the HW you have can't possibly be beat in terms of performance. But the trend to make Linux more "novice friendly" is a big mistake IMO. But I'm still a big believer in what Linux can offer.

Actually anytime i need to do file copies i open a command prompt.. file copies take twice as long using explorer and shift dragging, then a dos prompt using xcopy or copy... i've shown this to our tech's time and time again but they still use explorer since it's "pretty"

The difference is you know how to use both ways, he didn't and didn't want to know.
Watching him use the dir command through 4 levels in the PC and 2 levels on the CD to find the files and where he wanted to copy them too. Then doing that for 3 independant files was like watching grass grow in slow motion.

Hmm so you think you can locate and find 3 files in a directory of 30 files, a few levels down on a CD then copy them quicker to the new directory using command prompt faster than I could open 8 folders and drag/shift copy?

I used to used Dos a long time ago, I still have a Dos manual in my bookcase, hopefully never need it, no intention of going back thanks

ouch He runs both and is a script writer...and can configure a windows system very well thanks He just prefers linux...btw i call Linux Linsux does that make me a cutesy irritating person also

Easy:

cp `find . -name "filename1" -o -name "filename2" -o -name "filename3"` targetdir

For those unfamiliar with this syntax, it's standard UNIX shell stuff, which works fine on MS Windows using Cygwin.

even without resorting to cygwin i could... e:, dir *fileiwant* /s, cd location found, copy file new location

I might not get to the final location as fast as clicking, but if that file is 10M or larger you can be sure i'll be finished copying it before explorer with it's pretty graphics shows it's copied.