Microsoft Vs Open source.

We all have opinions, lets try and work out the facts

[mack]

I know this has bean talked about many times in the past but these types of thread often end up as a listing of people’s personal feelings as opposed to actual information. There are many reasons why a person would chose one operating system over another. It may be pricing, features, what they are used to or simply what came pre-installed on their new system. The Microsoft – Linux debate has been classed as swings and roundabouts on pricing. You pay more for a Microsoft OS but generally have support included as part of your licence agreement. You pay less for Linux but may need to pay more for support and /or IT services. I don’t think we will ever be able to find a definitive answer to “What operating system offers the best value for money” This question is just far to varied from one instance to another. For example a large Web hosting company running 1000 servers. They have their own IT staff and are trained in Linux administration. The licensing cost will obviously be the issue and in this case Linux will come out on top. Another example a new start Company who require PC workstations and LAN for the office area. They outsource IT and are average users in terms of computer knowledge. In this case Windows would probably be the smarter choice because the Microsoft business licence plan will offer the support they need to get set up and running as well as support when required.

Another issue that must equate is usability of the systems. I think it is fare to say that Microsoft products are generally a lot easier to use. This in it’s self could play a big part in the OS decision-making progress. Experienced user why have spend a lot of time getting to know NIX systems may well find that using open source offers them a lot more freedom and an increase their productivity.

Another factor I think has to be taken into account is the people or organisations that are behind the operating system. Microsoft is a company, and as such will put making profit pretty high on it’s priority list. Open source on the other hand is generally developed by the community. Does this mean that Open source developers are more interested in improving software quality than corporations are? After all making money doesn’t come into the equation. They are building applications to contribute to the movement.

I think the Microsoft Vs Open source debate is one that’s going to be around for the foreseeable. I would like to hear any information you would like to add.

Mack.

[littleman]

Mack, your post is very good quality, yet every time we've tried to do the MS vs open source debate it has crashed and burned. I think the reason why is because OS choice is like religion -- everybody is bias.

Also, I think we have a tendency to over simplify the dichotomy of MS vs. OS. For instance RedHat and SuSE have corporate licenses and customer service which is very good yet comes at a high price.

So, for any debate it really wouldn't be MS vs. OS, but more:
MS vs. RH vs.FreeBSD vs SUN vs. UnitedLinux vs. (the non profit and smaller Linux distributions) vs...

I've said in the past that all MS vs. OS post would be moved to foo, but maybe we could manage this.

[TheWhippinpost]

I love open-source. Having said that, open source is highly reliant on folk working on scripts in their spare time with little to no multi-disciplined back-up and support.

As such, open-source will always be in the "slow lane". One has to be highly organised to carry a product to maturity and as well-intentioned open-source developers are, few can pull it off meaning good potential projects being abandoned mid-flight - One only has to sift through SourceForge to see plenty of projects that have stood still since 2000

A mission-critical business needs to invest in products that they can depend on being here next year and in tune with the needs of that business sector.

[mack]

I think I have to agree with your point TheWhippinpost. I think the lack of co-ordination within the OS community is one of the reasons NIX is so much of a learning curve. When everything is done by the one company it develops a certain feel. When you use windows all programs function in a similar manner and almost all software is accessable through the start menue. When you use Linux you often need to run applications from command line ect. This probably isn't going to hinder the power users but for in-experienced users this would be a nightmare.

Mack.

[littleman]

There are thousands of 'for profit' dead projects too, just fewer sites showcasing them.

A couple of weeks ago a friend asked me to setup the dhcp client for her in XP. I poked around her box for about 25 minutes trying to find out where windows hid the settings. It was not at all intuitive for me. I am sure a power windows user would find it right away, but I am getting quite rusty with MS products.

My point, a lot of what people judge as usability is really familiarity.

[mack]

Good point.
In your previous post you said "OS choice is like religion -- everybody is bias." I supose when you think about it, everyone has their own way of doing things. Even two people running the same OS. There will be pretty big differences in the way each person manages their files an folders. Small differences make big problems. Good example of this came only last week when a "friend" thought it would be a great laugh to change the icons I use on my desktop. You become intuitive to those sort of things. Actualy having to look for items made things really slow. I think everyone looks at their computer in the same way. Most people think "my computer" when in reality they should be thining "my operating system" But most regular users think windows is their computer. Most probably don't know what windows does and im sure the majority dont realise there are alternatives.

I think the programers who devlop for the OS community need to try and think more along the lines of plugging their work into GUI's such as KDE or Gnome. It would be great to simply be able to download software. Install it and access it from KDE. This is one of the strongest points in favour or Microsoft. Easy for inexperienced users.

Mack.

[dingman]

I am sure a power windows user would find it right away, but I am getting quite rusty with MS products.

Hear, hear!

I think the programers who devlop for the OS community need to try and think more along the lines of plugging their work into GUI's such as KDE or Gnome.

Not quite sure what you mean here. Most of my desktop-type programs are Gnome apps. Before Evolution got as slick as it is, I used Kmail, which is a KDE app. My browser is Galeon, a Gnome app. Granted, my editor of choice, which is an absolutely essential application for me, more important than any other program, is emacs, which AFAIK doesn't have a Gnome or GTK interface available, but it gets along find in a Gnome desktop, and it's only a terminal application when I want it to be. Abiword has a Gnome version, Gnumeric does too, etc. I know people who think that lack of an Acess-like app is a problem, but I don't know what you would use Access for. Anymore, it seems like every new project is using GTK+, Gnome, or Qt.

For server apps, that's less the case. However, I not only don't want a GUI for Apache or Bind, I'd be pissed off if the config files were replaced with guis and binary configuration systems. Why the hell would I want to have to load GTK+ into memory, or even have iton the hard drive, on my headless web server?

<ot>Ahh! I used the "Anymore, <rest of sentence>" construction. I'm turning into a Midwesterner. Help!</ot>