Is it fair to compare

Post Reply New Topic

Six month linux(specifically Ubuntu) releases to windows service packs?

No poll, because I want discussion. With XP having 3 service packs over 6 years(correct?) and Ubuntu having six releases over 3 years, they should be comparable in features gained.
The real question is: does the six month release schedule put Ubuntu ahead in the game? Is it sustainable?

Previous released versions have put Ubuntu ahead of XP for example, at least in the field of windows managers. Now with Vista and aero out, they came to somewhat parity.

Two more releases of Ubuntu are coming in the next 11 months, focusing on boot speed, web integration and further efficiency for small foot print computers. Windows 7 is being worked on, but is it likely already behind in features? The development roadmap was likely designed years ago already. Wont a change in plans and tail chasing insure a hodge-podge operating system? To stay the plotted course will perhaps yield an efficient and stable operating system, but wont it be feature light in comparison?

I'm not looking to slag MS in any sort of way. I want to hear the respective merits of a slow development schedule verses a fast one.

Maybe MS should speed up and canonical should slow down? What do you think?

I don't think you can compare Windows and Linux on such a level.

The amount of updates, if called releases, service packs or whatever is absolutely unimportant. Who cares how often they update it? More update could mean more features or could be based on bugs that had to be fixed or anything else.

For the features: The amount of features isn't too important too. As long as it has the core features I need, I don't care much about fancy, shining details that I don't use much anyway.

Same goes for the amount of available windows managers. Linux is far ahead if you count all of them, but 90 % of those where most likely never used by anybody but the guy who wrote it.

New features again: I don't care much about new features as such. Best example: KDE4. Looks shiny, but has a concept that I don't like. So I still use KDE3 and that's fine.

Last but not least: It depends on the user. What features does he need or want? What experience does he have? (There is not much sense in having lots of features in Linux, if you can't install Linux or can't get it run with your hardware, because the only available driver needs manual compiling and the user doesn't even know, what a terminal window is...)

In Linux, fragmentation is a huge advantage. Thousands of volunteers working on hundreds of different projects, and anytime someone comes up with something cool everyone else steals it. That kind of decentralized development will give us the best innovation, especially as the developers are passionate users who are emotionally invested in their work and are programming to have something for themselves, as opposed to code monkeys sitting in cubicles just trying to meet the next deadline for software they have no interest in other than the paycheck.

I think thats a little unfair. They would in theory be very interested in developing the system they likely prefer. Also, my buddy Tim works for MS. Hes a real linux man but was excited to go work for MS.

This statement of unfairness seems to prove the point because Tim is a Linux man but does windows for money. I can't think of a funny but clean way of saying "Linux man does Windows for money".

No. MS just tries to look like they are "working" on improvements...

"Linux man cleans Bill Gates windows for a living."

The irony of it is this: He works in the graphics drivers and GUI department. His job really is to clean up windows.