back

by itvision·5y ago·view on hn ↗
> Linux runs better on both new and older hardware.

This is very much debatable. What's true however is that if your HW is not supported by at least Windows 8.1 you're SoL.

> Better as in programs open faster, the file manager opens faster, the task manager opens faster. Everything uses less memory and less CPU cycles. Everything is snappier.

I haven't observed any slow downs in Windows 10 for ages. As for "less memory and CPU cycles" it's just outright false. Windows offers much better hardware acceleration for everything: display rendering, video encoding and decoding, RDP (VNC in X11/Wayland taxes the CPU quite a lot and forget about effectively streaming video via VNC), etc. Linux is quite horrible in this regard.

> Linux users don't have to worry nearly as much about malware, trojans, viruses, exploits. It's more secure.

Unless you're obsessed with downloading software illegally, it's not an issue in Windows either. I don't remember the last time I had to deal with malware for my +20 of friends using it.

> Linux distros generally don't annoy users with stealthy automatic forced updates.

Windows updates are very much in your face.

> Linux distros have a better app store experience than Windows, plus most of whatever there is free without much if any risk.

Except there's 100 times more software in Windows.

> Linux doesn't have any phone home telemetry type "features" built into the OS.

No one has ever proven Microsoft accesses or downloads any of your files, or uses telemetry data to find out what applications you're running.

> Linux user experience is much more customizable. There are a much greater variety of tools at your disposal to customize how you want your desktop to look and operate.

This one is true however with a lot of choice comes a lot of confusion and doubt.

> Linux is free.

Windows 10 OEM license can be bought for as little as $10. This is 100% irrelevant nowadays.

5 comments
> Windows 10 OEM license can be bought for as little as $10. This is 100% irrelevant nowadays.

Really? Where? When asking Microsoft about it, they say No.

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/where-...

≥ Except there's 100 times more software in Windows

Really? I bet dockerhub alone has more linux-capable software than windows has anywhere. I also expect that a randomly chosen GitHub repo is more likely to support Linux than it is to support Windows.

Maybe these aren't fair comparisons, but I'm not sure what would be. The ecosystems are so different it's hard to know how such a count would go.

Dockerhub is a drop in an ocean, no central repository can hold windows software, it's that big.
> I bet dockerhub alone has more linux-capable software than windows has anywhere. I also expect that a randomly chosen GitHub repo

You are confusing a subset "developers who use linux-compatible tools" with the set "users".

Is the userbase size relevant?

I'm not saying "I have more tools than you have cars" because I think it makes me win at something. I'm trying to point out that the ecosystems are so different that it's hard to quantify which side has "more".

> Is the userbase size relevant?

Yes

> I'm trying to point out that the ecosystems are so different that it's hard to quantify which side has "more".

No. In response to "there's 100 times more software in Windows." you started speaking about dockerhub and git. That does not encompass all software, especially software that is required by non-programmers.

Let L be the set of all software for Linux and W be the set of all software for Windows.

If there is a subset of L that is larger than W, then L itself is also larger than W.

I was proposing that if you count every image, or every repo, then dockerhub-only or the GitHub-only subsets of L might be larger than W because the effort of creating an additional windows project is much greater than the effort of creating an additional Linux project.

The amount of software in dockerhub and github is entirely irrelevant when you just for a second stop considering just the subset "developers who use linux-compatible tools".
You can't buy/use an OEM license for windows on a box you build yourself can you? The last windows machine I put together, I paid > $100 for Windows itself.
Many PC builders just don't activate Windows at all—other than a few occasional nags, Microsoft doesn't really enforce Windows activation anymore. It's just like how Apple doesn't crack down on Hackintoshing. Both the build-your-own PC market and the Hackintosh market are small enough that it's not worth the time.
Plus, Microsoft is better off having the few prospective Linux-users to have experience tinkering with Windows rather than Linux, even if they don't pay for Windows directly either way. It means they're more likely to be happy using Windows for business IT infrastructure, which is where Microsoft makes its real money.
> Microsoft doesn't really enforce Windows activation anymore

Except an unactivated Windows, once past its trial window, will shut down after an hour of use, without warning. That's very annoying.

MS absolutely does enforce activation. They likely won't come after you for using cracks (unless you have hundreds of corporate machines using them), but they will make your life awkward remotely, as they are entitled to by the EULA.

This has not been true for some time. You can continue to use un-activated Win10 installs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Product_Activation#A...

You just can't change the wallpaper away from black, and there is a notice displayed on it.

You can change the wallpaper by right-clicking on an image file, just not through the personalization preferences.

   > Except an unactivated Windows, once past its trial window, will shut down after an hour of use, without warning.
Only LTSC Evaluation version gonna do that.
This is no longer the case.
You can use OEM licenses on Windows boxes you build yourself. The main difference with an OEM license and a retail license is that OEM licenses do not come with as much support. The idea is the system builder is supposed to provide the first level of support, while retail licenses are supported by Microsoft directly.
Except that's a breach of the EULA and therefore comparable to piracy.
I don't see where its a breach in the EULA to have the end user also be the manufacturer/builder of the system. Can you point out where its a breach?

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/OEM/Windows/10/UseT...

My brother built a PC and bought a Windows 10 key for $10 online and it worked fine.
People actually pay for Windows on desktops? That still surprises me. I know of course you do pay when buying a laptop, but Windows is basically free, there's a trial and you can just use an activator, or buy an OEM key for 10 bucks as the parent states.
Parent author reporting back. I am going to have to sort of disagree with you there (in Lumbergh voice).

In all seriousness though, you are wrong on all points. Sorry, yes you are wrong. Rather than write a point by point rebuttal, against my common sense (you know, the thing about arguing with someone one the Internet) I'll just write a few paragraphs, provide some professional anecdotal and maybe quantitative evidence, and allow others to decide what's reasonable.

I build laptops and desktops for students of whom I teach programming and electronics. I build both new and used systems, and I loan and sell a lot of computers. Students get the loaners, buyers fund profits to buy more students computers. That said I experience a wide variety of actual system performance information across a large spectrum of computers.

Linux installs faster than Windows by a lot. When booting it's my experience that Linux can open a task manager (sometimes called system monitor on Linux) quicker than on a Windows system, the same goes for the file manager (explore on Windows). Across the board most programs open faster on Linux. You can disbelieve all you want, but that's just an objective reality.

https://i.imgur.com/UxR30xG.png

Regarding less CPU cycles, yes again it 's true, Linux uses less. Linux has far fewer background services and other tasks running in the background doing a bunch of unnecessary stuff.

https://www.pcerror-fix.com/windows-10-services-to-disable-f...

It's not just the services though. Windows is constantly scanning files for viruses or other malware, it's recording your activity, it's indexing the content of your computer as files are written or change. All this causes guess what? More CPU cycles and more memory being consumed. You may now go back and check my second point.

Moving on, you are wrong again on point number three. You don't need to download illegal Windows software to get malware. You can get it attached as an add on to free legal Windows programs.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/oracle-extends-its-adware-bund... https://www.information-age.com/hotbed-malware-another-blow-...

Next, Windows updates are notorious for downloading updates in the background without your knowledge or consent. There are well known stories of people who were working on an important task on their Windows computer, who got up for a break and came back to see updates being applied from an automatic reboot causing their work to be forever lost.

https://www.howtogeek.com/224471/how-to-prevent-windows-10-f... https://www.constellationsolutions.com/informational/tired-o...

Without a doubt Windows has more software, but I said the Linux app store experience is better than Windows. On Linux distributions have app stores that come from a curated list, and those apps are built from source by the distribution maintainer. They are verified to some degree and use the same installation methodology. On Windows this is not the case, a lot of software installs automatically without user consent. I keep getting Espon software each time I install Windows on a new computer attached to my network, gleefully telling me I need to buy ink from Epson. Additionally, Windows software often contains other adware or malware even if it comes from a Windows store. The software management side of things on Windows is a big stinking mess, which was the point I made, but yeah feel free miss that point to morph it into "Windows has more software".

When I said telemetry, that means collecting you data. You're not only being disingenuous in asserting that means downloading your personal files, you're also asking someone to prove a negative.

Regarding customization, on my distribution of choice it's very easy to change the icon or control theme, add extensions, and change those settings. There are prebuilt themes you can preview and click on to make a bunch of changes all at once, or you can click the original prebuilt to restore to the default settings.

You say the price of Linux versus Windows is 100% irrelevant nowadays. As a system builder I don't follow. Does Windows cost a system builder money or not? If it does, then it's not irrelevant.

I find this an extremely weird set of argument.

Opening the task manager or explorer takes less time than I can measure on both Windows and Linux... what kind of metric is this?

As for background services, of course they spend (at that moment unused resources). But you completely forego that they have an actual usefulness. Indexing files makes searching later faster. Prefetching makes loading commonly used programs faster. Virus scanning keeps your computer safe. Telemetry helps developers recognize issues and prioritize bugs, even stop hackers in time. The article you mentioned wants you to disable the firewall (bad advice) but also a lot of services that are not even consuming resources unless you have the necessary policies/hardware, like the bluetooth service or touch screen service.

Not that Windows these days runs from high-end server to low powered ARM devices, while still looking generally the same. This is not the same Windows from 20 years ago where you could easily tweak the system to get some more performance out of it. These days Windows comes out of the box running as fast as it can, while giving a reasonable user experience.

As for software, on Windows you're free to install all the software you want (just as on Linux), some software is not so nice, just as on Linux. I find it hard to blame Windows itself for that. Microsoft does not curate all the software you can install it, and a user is free to install what they want. The only OSes where this is really different are mobile OSes.

Opening software takes a lot of time on Windows. It's mainly due to the antivirus. I recently tested it myself; I forget the numbers but basically having Microsoft's AV enabled adds a good fraction of a second, or maybe more, to every program launch.
>Opening the task manager or explorer takes less time than I can measure on both Windows and Linux... what kind of metric is this?

I feel like a lot of people here are devs running reasonably modern computers but as someone running dualboots at home (manjaro KDE) and at work from time to time dealing with the kind of desktops most people use in their day to day life.... (As in they're not actually that old but weren't top of the line when bought either) ....this is actually one of my biggest gripes with it.

Windows really is slow as fuck. Sometimes it's really noticeable on the somewhat older hardware but on the other stuff it doesn't really annoy you until you compare because we're talking very short delays, little bits of lags....the thing is...It's there for just about everything. There's not a whole lot that feels instantaneous which makes it all perfectly usable but feel off at the same time.

I didn't even think about it till I switched to Linux at home and noticed just how snappy stuff feels. MacOS has felt similarly snappy the few times i've used it but I don't use it enough to really comment.

>As for software, on Windows you're free to install all the software you want (just as on Linux), some software is not so nice, just as on Linux. I find it hard to blame Windows itself for that. Microsoft does not curate all the software you can install it, and a user is free to install what they want. The only OSes where this is really different are mobile OSes.

Tbh I thought similar (and mostly it'll still be true) until I tried to use a playstation 3 controller (a very common item at least at the time) for a windows only game. It worked out of the box on Linux and I believe an xbox controller would have worked like that and on windows as well but to get the ps3 one I had working on windows i had to jump trough hoops, change some stuff so i could then disable driver signature enforcement and tweak a few other things only to give up in the end when it still didn't work after I had managed. Even if it worked it wouldn't work every time because the ways of getting around permanently disabling signed drivers constantly keep being patched by Windows.

The slowness is something I particularly notice with python. I'm a linux user, but many of my students work on windows. Every time they show me something on linux and import numpy or scipy it takes like 10s for the import. While on my linux system it's typically instantaneous. Can anyone elaborate on where this is coming from?
> Indexing files makes searching later faster.

It's been my experience that Windows search is anything but fast. On Linux on the other hand, the speed of find(1) was never an issue. There is really nothing to speed up (and in so doing increase median load).

You have the patient of a saint, the person you are responding too is at best an amateur "Microsoft Evangelist"
I had to buy Pro for Docker usage. $200
I used Docker and WSL2 with Home.