Why do people prefer Linux over other versions of Unix?

Post Reply New Topic

I keep hearing about Linux and how great it is, how it's the ultimate operating system and everyone should use it. It seems everyone who was using BSD, SCO, HP-UX, Solaris, etc. has switched to Linux. I have Mac OS X, which is the most popular version of Unix only because it was made by Apple, and I was wondering if I should do a dual boot between that and Linux, or get another computer and install Linux on it, but first I want to know what is with all this fuss over Linux. Why is it so much better than all the other Unix based operating systems?

I think this has a lot to do with Linux's universal adaptation. Linux has the best device driver support out of all of the Unixes. Linux has also been free from its very beginning, and this has allowed it to gain a widespread user base. Most other Unixes have been playing catch up to a large degree.

I think the answer can be found in the flip side of your question. What does unix have that linux lacks?

I guess the unices are more academic and scientific, and there is less promotion of them. As well, they have smaller developer bases. Who is the Linus of the unix world? Who is the Stallman of BSD? Nobody is pushing unix very hard, and nobody is making a controversy out of it the way they do with linux.

Linux is more widely used than the other Unices because it is more mature, and also because once it captured the lion's share of the *nix userbase any new UNIX users chose Linux because the OS with the biggest community has an advantage. (Much like how Ubuntu currently dominates Linux)

As far as Linux being the ultimate operating system... meh. It's an excellent system, I like it and use it, but it's not for everyone. OS X is also very nice, and as you mentioned is in fact the most popular UNIX system around. Open up a shell in OS X and you have an extremely powerful system to play with.

If you want to try Linux, go download Ubuntu and dual boot that on your Mac. By now they've gotten most of the drivers going out of the box for MacTel hardwware, so it should give you a relatively hassle-free first look.

The Unixes are mainly for mission critical situations for Companies who need known reliable solutions for Servers. They are hugely backwards compatible and work well in large enterprise situations. On the other hand they are much more complicated to use and have archaic syntax and have proprietary hardware so you have to have harwardware contract though the vendor.

Linux on the other hand is a great platform for both desktop and server operations. It's more robust than it's proprietary cousins and is shaped by millions of programers around the world (see GPL). Many large Vendors, IBM, Redhat, Novell Support Linux in Business operations. Linux also will nearly work with all the hardware out there.

On the flipside being desktops. There is no reason to use the Unix's due to their lack of drivers and hardware compatibility issues with desktops. I use both Linux and MacOsX at home and the work great. At work I'm a Unix Admin on Solaris 9/10 and HP-UX 11i v3 and it's a hole different world.

My $0.02

Mainly because commercial Unix (AIX, Xenix, UNIX, etc) cost an @#$-load of money. They're not nearly as friendly as Linux is. They're mainly designed for Enterprise-level networks, which is a bit overkill for most home systems...

Plus, Linux users are just cooler and have more girlfriends....woops did I say that out loud? They'll ban me for sure now...

Linux developer gets laid.

Linux is:

1 - Free.

2 - Popular.

3 - Runs on just about everything.

Yes. We are the sluts of the operating systems.

i heard linux is better for hacking, i was just wondering if thats true, supposedly it was featured in the matrix movies

also what makes linux better than windows, and do windows programs work on linux etc????? PLEASE IM REALLY CONSIDERING GETTING IT BUT MY LOYALTY TO WINDOWS IS STRONG whoops caps on

Linux has a lot of excellent developer tools available, since it has traditionally been a favorite OS of programmers.


There are a lot of reasons why Linux can be said to be better than Windows. There is improved security, stability, performance, and reliability in Linux compared to Windows. It also allows the user much more choice. You can customize Linux to your heart's content (and perhaps further). Most Windows programs will not run on Linux, but excluding games there is almost always an alternative program for Linux that does the same thing and is free. Some Windows programs can be made to work in WINE, but I wouldn't trust that for something you actually need. It is possible to run Windows as a virtual machine inside Linux (XP running on a separate virtual monitor in Ubuntu is, IMO, the best way to run Windows).

Anything that uses the standard windows API.. windows, menus etcetera, should work well in wine. Games are trickier, especially directx based ones.

Generally you can do a great more customizing with the interfaces of linux. Graphically there are a lot of applications that allow that, and if you really wanted, you could recode aspects. For coding and other hacking, the programming languages and API interfaces are much more accessible.

For example, this is a short program that will grab a video feed from your web camera. It doesnt even need to be made into an exe to run. Credit to who ever wrote this.. and you can see that they freely shared it.

So while linux is more complicated, there is a spirit of sharing that can allow you to become directly involved in the shape and future of the operating system. If you create something good, it could be integrated.

This is exactly the reason why I choose to not use Linux. The software most Linux users run on their computers is complete garbage. Show me superior alternatives to the Windows-only software Miranda IM, Foobar2000 or Media Player Classic - Home Cinema. There is simply nothing that comes close to matching the power of these apps for Linux.

Is Linux itself as an OS better than Windows? Yes, but marginally. The (mainly) poor alternative apps you have to run on it does not make up for all of its advantages over Windows though.

I agree with everything else you had to say though, about the performance, the ability to customize it to your heart's content, etc. MS operating systems tend to use up more ram than I'd like, don't allow me customize everything to the fullest and they cost money.

It is interesting to note that MirandaIM is open source. I see deprecated references to a linux version as well. Wonder what happened there? I had not heard of this software until you mentioned it.

Foobar2000 consistently shows up when people list things that are not available in linux. It must be a heck of a program. Freeware but not open source. That explains partially why it is not ported. It looks quite sophisticated.

Media Player Classic - Home Cinema - again, freeware, and the project changed hands at least once. I dont see why it couldnt be ported other than lack of will perhaps.

Thanks for pointing these out.

Surprising, most of the programs I use on Windows were programs I first got to know by running Linux. Surely you don't think such programs as Firefox are garbage?


Well, largely a matter of taste, but I'll try.


Pidgin has always been my preferred multi-IM.


I'm actually not very familiar with either of those. Foobar2000, I hear, is a simple media player. There are a wealth of those in Linux. Try VLC or mplayer for a start, both of which, I believe, have Windows ports. Then there are bigger graphical ones like Amarok, Rhythmbox, and many more that I forget now. Mplayer is certainly quite powerful.


From what I've seen, the advantage is not marginal, it's overwhelming. In any case, the thread was Linux vs other UNIX, not Linux vs Windows. A comparison of Linux to OS X would be more appropriate than comparisons to Windows.'


Oddly enough, I find myself in the opposite situation. There are programs I run in Linux that can't be obtained for Windows, or where the equivalent for Windows is prohibitively expensive.


I actually can get Windows for free from my school. I still choose not to use it because I find it less user-friendly than Linux.

I've been finding myself actually using OS X slightly more than Linux lately. The primary reason for this is a few lingering device driver issues (will I never get decent audio under Linux?) and the fact that I've been doing more console-based work, which is the same wherever you can find a Bash shell to work with.

Firefox is one of the very few exceptions.



Yes, a matter of rational taste.



Miranda is way more stable, is extremely customizable, uses 1/4 the ram that Pidgin uses.... shall I go on?. Pidgin = Winamp. Miranda IM = Foobar2000.



Foobar2000 is simple, yes, but feature-rich and powerful as hell. It's the standard software music player used by audiophiles. VLC? Are you kidding me? VLC has great 'out of the box' support for lots of different formats, but it's a highly overrated media player. Media Player Classic - Home Cinema is by far the most resource-friendly, stable and customizable software movie player out there. VLC is what I recommend to noobs since it doesn't require any tinkering around with, but for geeks and people who actually give a crap about quality, I recommend Media Player Classic - Home Cinema without hesitation. It's one of the only software media players that has support for the brand new video renderer MadVR which is even superior to Haali Renderer.



Who cares? Sorry, but I feel that at this point in time, Linux does not have enough adequate alternative applications to the ones I run on Windows. This is only my opinion though (and the opinion of other people who use the apps I do), so don't let it bother you.



You've never even heard of Foobar2000, Media Player Classic - Home Cinema or Miranda IM before, so the above doesn't mean anything to me. How would you know what the 'equivalent' is if you've never even used these apps I mentioned? For the record, the only pay software I run on my computer is Adobe PhotoShop. All the rest is freeware and open-source. I can give a huge list of the apps I run on my system if you want since you're obviously looking in the wrong places for freeware open-source Windows applications.



Stick to using a better operating system (whichever linux distro you use) if you'd like. You'll just have to not let the compromise of running inferior software on your computer bother you.

One thing to add:

Miranda IM, Foobar2000 and Media Player Classic - Home Cinema are only part of the reason why I don't use Linux. I never even mentioned IMGBurn (which is the best burning freeware app IMO) or Exact Audio Copy, which have no comparable Linux alternatives. Exact Audio Copy is used by some Linux users, but it has to be run through Wine. Supposedly IMGBurn has major stability issues when run through Wine.

I'd simply feel like I wasn't getting the most out of my computer if I'd not have Miranda IM, Media Player Classic - Home Cinema, IMGBurn, Foobar2000 or Exact Audio Copy on my system since I know that these apps are the criterion when it comes to apps of their corresponding type.