I think you made some very good points. I would only like to stress the fact that:
1) a *nix environment is probably the _best_ web server out there... (not to mention the cheapest) 2) linux has, and probably (even though we don't like to admit it) always will be a more complex operating system. 3) It works very well as a network server. Other than that, compliments on your thoroughness. -Michael On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 19:01, Mirabella, Mathew J wrote: > This may not be a very structured and organised piece of prose on this issue, but it > includes all of what i essentially think on the topic. Please correct me if i am > wrong on any particular technical issue. > > Windows and redhat might cost similar regarding the enterprise edition of redhat vs > windows xp pro, but the average person would probably just get the normal redhat cds > or download the os and install it for pretty much next to nothing. So from this > perspective, windows XP is more expensive for a base system than is red hat. > > Also, with a Windows system you do have to purchase MS Office to get a suite of > products like openoffice which is free with red hat and new linux distros, or at > least free to download. > > Also with windows, you do have to purchase photoshop and a number of other tools for > audio editing, programming, etc. You can get freeware stuff for Windows, but this is > usually not as good quality and has less features and less support. So you mostly > have to pay if you want good quality tools for windows. > > It can probably be argued that the applications that are free either with red hat or > which can be downloaded free are as good and in some cases better than good Windows > apps albeit sometimes with a few less features in the guis. > > So all things considered, red hat (and linux in general) is a lot cheaper and more > application rich at least from the standpoint of a base system. And this is to be > expected when you consider the GNU stuff and the open source notions surrounding > linux/unix apps. > > In addition, it is widely suggested that linux is a far more stable OS than windows, > and certainly the filesystem (ext2 and ext3) is a lot faster and more efficient than > fat and ntfs). Linux is also known as a far better system for networking, web > serving, and other such applications that are still dominated by unix style systems. > You do not have to reboot linux as often as windows, you can do more things without > needing to reboot for those things to take effect, and you dont get as many system > crashes with linux. > > However, there is another side to the story. Windows does come with full mp3 > support, media players that support a wide range of media types, a web browser that > does really support css and xslt/xml stuff properly (netscape and mozilla have a > long way to go with css support, and in some cases, even tables and frames). with > the addition of ms office, you have a range of office tools that are very feature > rich (still more so than openoffice), and an email client that is very easy to > configure (although, i have serious issues with microsoft exchange, but that is > another story). while red hat 8.0 for their own perhaps reasonable reasons, have > not provided mp3 support out of the box. > > In short, from the cds of windows and office, the install process is very easy, it > has worked well every time i have tried to do it, and once everything is installed, > you can basically do everything right away without worrying about any special files > to edit, things to compile in just the right way with the right files in the right > dirs or they don't work, etc. etc. > > The user interface of windows is still way ahead of gnome or kde, and way less buggy > (in my experience). The user interface is and has been more intuitive and > incorporates far more accessibility features than gnome or kde (although, these x > systems are moving in the right direction, they have a long way to go). e.g. > problems people have with graphics card support and fonts stuffing up and system > hangs... and new issues arising after updates. > > in windows, graphics and sound are supported right away. just install the drivers > if you need to and often you don't have to even do that... and it all works. I have > heard of very few problems with windows in the same way as those with red hat on > this issue. > > my experience with red hat (and other linux distros) is that the installation > process is slightly more complicated than windows, but once you get it done, there > are still many more things you have to fix to get it working properly. there are > excentricities with what red hat does have and does not have, excentricities with > what yor given linux distro sets up as default as opposed to others, and even what > is the default across versions of the same distro. I find the maintenance of such > an os much more messy than windows. especially when you have to even play around > with the kernel to get certain things to work properly that windows just does out of > the box. > > for example, red hat sets utf 8 support as the default, but in many common apps this > is not supported, so you get strange characters in emacs, etc. taking the utf.8 off > from the i118n file leaves you with a font that does not support some highlighting, > so you have to change this as well. I know that gnu apps are seperate from any > particular distro and i understand how these things interact, but at least windows > is a single os with a single direction where all things that are intended to work > together usually do so. > > updates from red hat (or whatever distro) are often difficult to manage. e.g. the > glibc problems people are having, the issue of kernel updates being different from > other ones, etc. With windows, just installing the update and rebooting results in > at the very least nothing broken that was not before. I have seen many posts to the > litsts recently where people say "i installed the latest red hat update and now > application x does not work, but it did before... what has happened". this has > never occured for windows in my experience. > > There may be some windows 95 apps that dont work in windows xp, but you can usually > get newer versions for the nt style of windows anyway. What i really mean here is > that any updates to a particular version of windows (e.g. updates of windows xp) do > not break any currently running apps. > > I know that more immediate support with hardware is likely to be better for windows > because most hardware like sound cards etc are comercial in nature, and thus usually > come with windows drivers as a default. e.g. creative labs sound cards. This is > understandable, and it is not a criticism of red hat or any linux distro. However, > if linux wantts to really hit the mass market, they have to learn three things from > windows. > > 1. for the gui, it has to have a very intuitive and device independent accessible > user interface, or at least accessible as far as being a template for making > applications that are accessible to a veriety of access apps like screen readers > etc. By device independent, i mean mouse + keyboard + whatever oelse access, to ALL > THINGS in the interface, not just one or the other, with keyboard access being > limited in some ways. Gnome and kde are on the way, but have a long way to go on > this. I know that windows screen readers and access apps are expensive, and > emacspeak and speakup for linux are free, but the windows GUI offers rich features > that are graphical PLUS accessible to a screen reader. whereas at the moment in > linux, screen readers only work in the text environment. If you want a graphical > web browser that is accessible, IE is currently the only one (but you have to get a > screen reader of course). > > 2. Maintain compatibility with older ways of doing things. Linux could be ahead > with this. i.e. providing good text based applications with rich user interfaces as > well as the gui apps. But i find it disappointing that new versions of distros of > linux cut out old apps like linuxconf in favour of only having gui based apps, > leaving text users to have to edit conf files etc. This cuts off continuity leaving > people wondering what app they have to use now to configure their system as opposed > to what was available in 7.3 where it is now different in 8.0. Windows may use > different styles and ways to do things from win 98 to win nt to win xp, but the apps > are fundementally the same in the way they are accessed from the desktop. > > 3. it has to work really well out of the box for the average user with the kind of > hardware that people are buying now as well as older stuff, not only the kind of > hardware that people had available a year ago. e.g. creative labs audigy 2 requires > significant kernel patching to work, and even then people have issues in linux. All > apps have to work well together without conflicts, and the package management system > has to automatically install and configure dependencies etc. the dselect and > apt-get stuff for debian is slightly ahead of rpm on this latter score. > > It has to be powerful and app rich, and linux is just that, but it also has to offer > the basic user a wide range of ready to go applications that people want to use > every day with minimum of fuss to get them going and no sudden rude issues of > something not working right after an in-version update or patch that fixes an old > bug. > > In short, out of the box, windows is intuitive and ready to go right away with > minimum config and maintenance issues, and a wealth of support for new hardware. > While many modern linux distro versions claim this, it is usually not quite the > case, or at least not yet. > > so which would I choose? There are pros and cons of both. > > If i have time to muck around, install and re install, configure, experiment, work > out how this and that works, and i have time and want to learn the finer points of > networks and programming etc, i would choose linux. or maybe even free bsd! and i > might choose to live with the exentricities, taking them as a challenge. > > but... > > If i just wanted to start doing work, edit documents, write email, chat on the net, > browse the net, play audio stuff, and do all of this right away with a minimum of > fuss... I would use Windows with no hesitation, and i would live with the issues of > instability. > > and that is all i can think of to say at this point. > > Mat. > > > > Mat Mirabella > Centre For Accessibility > Telstra Research 03 9253 6712 > http://www.telstra.com.au/accessibility > http://www.in.telstra.com.au/ism/centreforaccessibility > Member: W3C WAI WCAG Working Group. http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ed Wilts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, 26 March 2003 1:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Red Hat 9 > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 06:29:04PM -0500, Gerald Henriksen wrote: > > So your average person at home now has a choice of Windows XP at $300 > > or Red Hat Enterprise Workstation at $300 ($60 a year after the first > > year for access to security fixes). Guess what, XP comes with full > > multimedia capabilities including MP3 and DVD, as well as a full range > > of software available for purchase including games, tax software, etc. > > Which would you choose? > > And Red Hat Linux comes with a full office suite, a Photoshop clone, a > bunch of other utilities, web development tools, and a whole bunch more. > You don't need to pay extra for Microsoft Office, Photoshop, and other > imaging software, nor a project management suite. Add them all up and > you'll see that Windows is a *lot* more expensive. > > >And by the way, so far at least Microsoft > > still offers free security fixes in the base price. > > As does Red Hat. However, your pricing is suspect. Windows XP Pro is > $299. Red hat Enterprise is $179/year for the download edition and $299 > per year for the standard edition. > > In the first 90 days, Microsoft offers you absolutely no support. Red > Hat offers telephone and web-based support. If you need assistance > setting up a desktop, this could save you a bunch. The standard edition > includes both phone and web support with service level guarantees and > extends this for the entire year. Microsoft support costs $245 for > phone support *per incident*. > > -- > Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program > > > > -- > Psyche-list mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list -- Psyche-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list
