Jealous See

[debio264]

Aero comed first. And still is stable and not crappy,

Uhhhh, Beryl/Compiz/Compiz-Fusion was out years before Vista was released.

instead of Compiz that is stable only on ubuntu. I've tryed it on Red Hat 5 Enterprise and was a bunch of crap to install it, and I've done some hard C work to modify some libraries that doesn't want to compile with it.

Well, I'm using Compiz on my Arch Linux laptop with crappy ATI Radeon XPress 200M integrated graphics, so I don't see the compatibility issue much anymore.
Red Hat is primarily a business server distro, and you'll find that in other more consumer oriented distros, desktop apps tend to work better.

Not an objective reply. Data simply shows that Vista is secure as unix (minus MacOS that is the worst secure system).

You can argue the security issue back and forth with Linux/Unix vs Windows for years, but the end result is that on Linux, the people that run servers and need to worry about security generally know enough about what they're doing that it gets done. As for the desktop, a Windows desktop user has to worry about viruses and all sorts of nasty exploits, whereas a Linux user doesn't have to be very concerned. Linux has been doing the same thing with "sudo" that Vista did with UAC for years, and it definitely works.
I have no doubt that Microsoft will catch up in the security arena, but so far Linux security problems have been fixed much more quickly than Windows problems.

Ubuntu was not exploited, it's right, but Vista was exploited using an Adobe Reader 0-day exploit. That means 3rth party software problems, that is not directly involved in kernel ops. Ubuntu doesn't suffer of this exploit just because doesn't run Adobe Reader or Adobe Flash, using an open-source (but with less functionality) component.

In Linux, even if you ran that plugin, an exploit could at most crash Adobe Reader and your browser. Because Linux is made of many independent layers, it becomes extremely difficult for any misbehaving application to bring the system down. The user generally doesn't even have write access to the executables for things like the browser and other applications, so an exploit couldn't even be used to plant a trojan.

And maybe, the thing that the whole world knows and hole, can be a problem to administrat that by some way cannot upgrade systems (upgrade the kernel on a linux distro maybe not be a safe operation in enterprise business because can create upredictable events, just think that VMWare Server 2.0 have issues with Ubuntu 9.04).

One of Linux's weaknesses is that the rapid cycle of releases and security fixes used by so many open source projects simply doesn't carry over to closed source development, so closed source applications do break occasionally and they take quite some time to fix. This is because with open source, when someone testing cutting edge software notices a problem, they can generally send a patch to fix it to the project in question and get the whole thing fixed up. With closed source, this simply isn't possible, and due to poor communication, bugs are generally caught and fixed quite a bit later.

Incorrect. Open source was not started with linux, but with ScoUNIX / BSD, and much more. GNU used Linux as the kernel for his systems just becase HURD was not ready (and still not ready).

I said Linux was the home of open source development, not that it was the start. It's entirely true that Unix came first, but most open source development nowadays does take place on Linux.
And don't even mention SCO. That's just a mess.

A commercial licence of Red Hat 5 Enterprise costs near 700 €. A commercial licence of Red Hat 5 Desktop costs near 200 €. And, no, you cannot use for work things like ubuntu because it have a lot of kernel modification that make it uncompatible with all other distros, as just os SuSE. The business standard is Red Hat, we all know, but isn't free at all. You can use Fedora, but deliberatly doesn't have all the tool (clustering, for example) that Red Hat 5 Enterprise have. If you don't pay for a licence you can still install him if you can find the DVD, but the system will not upgrade at all until you doesn't provide a regular licence ID.

You can get a license of CentOS for... free. You can realize that Ubuntu's kernel changes are generally backported security fixes or features, and that kernel patches can only in extremely rare circumstances cause application imcompatibilities.
RedHat is Linux for the business world, where companies want to pay a lot of money for the privilege of yelling at people when something goes wrong. I tend to laugh at it, but it's a model that works in the long run. Paying for software means you can call tech support or get onsite help when something breaks.

About the UI, the general performance of the graphic subsystem by Windows is really better.

Linux graphics drivers, while they've improved in leaps and bounds in the last few years, are still pretty bad and pretty slow. Keep in mind that Linux is having to compete against graphics companies with control over the hardware designs and specs as well as decades of experience.

Simply, who have the patience and the time to do this?

That question alone demonstrates why Linux has been rising for the last decade. There *are* Linux developers with the patience and time to do everything from application development to reverse engineering wireless drivers, and the net result is a rich platform that's still growing.

[ichwar]

There is a lot of programs out there that implements things from linux into windows. I already seen multiple desktops and 3D cube for windows on sourceforge.

More-so now, but they all stole their ideas from linux. And the original is always the best.

[galaxyAbstractor]

More-so now, but they all stole their ideas from linux. And the original is always the best.

So you're saying ubuntu 1 (or whatever the first ubuntu was called) is better than ubuntu 9.04? xD

[xmaverick]

Uhhhh, Beryl/Compiz/Compiz-Fusion was out years before Vista was released.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiz
Compiz was out on 2006. Beryl was out in 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Aero
Aero was first out on 2005.

I know linux users are jealous, but on graphics Windows is always the first.

Well, I'm using Compiz on my Arch Linux laptop with crappy ATI Radeon XPress 200M integrated graphics, so I don't see the compatibility issue much anymore.
Red Hat is primarily a business server distro, and you'll find that in other more consumer oriented distros, desktop apps tend to work better.

Also Open Suse still have problems on my GeForce 5200. Windows Vista doesn't have problems.

You can argue the security issue back and forth with Linux/Unix vs Windows for years, but the end result is that on Linux, the people that run servers and need to worry about security generally know enough about what they're doing that it gets done. As for the desktop, a Windows desktop user has to worry about viruses and all sorts of nasty exploits, whereas a Linux user doesn't have to be very concerned. Linux has been doing the same thing with "sudo" that Vista did with UAC for years, and it definitely works.
I have no doubt that Microsoft will catch up in the security arena, but so far Linux security problems have been fixed much more quickly than Windows problems.

http://www.gentoo.org/

As you can see from gentoo.org, a lot of execution of arbitrary code are presented here. In Windows these attack cannot be done because of the use of NX (NON-EXECUTE) bit, that allows the OS to mark data area as non-executable directly via hardware. At this time, the other also system that will implement the NX bit will be leopard.
The patch on Windows are released every Wedsndey of the month because this was scheduled with most of the worldwide adiministrator, so they have the time to preparare a backup of all the system for stability. The way of the linux update in the enterprise enviroment is simple: doesn't upgrade. If you surf the forum, the best way to take a linux distro up to date is don't take it up to date because the results of a patch can be upredictable to the software, and varies from kernel header modules modified (and so not being usable by later software version) to drivers that doesn't load corretly inside the kernel (like the one of vmware). On an business model, MacOS X Server, BSD, and Widnows are better than linux.

In Linux, even if you ran that plugin, an exploit could at most crash Adobe Reader and your browser. Because Linux is made of many independent layers, it becomes extremely difficult for any misbehaving application to bring the system down. The user generally doesn't even have write access to the executables for things like the browser and other applications, so an exploit couldn't even be used to plant a trojan.

As I wrote past, and you can see on gentoo, a plugin ran on linux can do a privilege escalation, and run at root as all other OSes. So, this is a myth about unix.

One of Linux's weaknesses is that the rapid cycle of releases and security fixes used by so many open source projects simply doesn't carry over to closed source development, so closed source applications do break occasionally and they take quite some time to fix. This is because with open source, when someone testing cutting edge software notices a problem, they can generally send a patch to fix it to the project in question and get the whole thing fixed up. With closed source, this simply isn't possible, and due to poor communication, bugs are generally caught and fixed quite a bit later.

This is changed. Now closed-source world have societies that do only the job of break system e signals fails and bugs. So they can be patched some time with more speed than an open source one. Also because open source doesn't mean "understandable source". Do you've tried to get the Firefox code? I do, and really it's a pain just to understand where and how.

You can realize that Ubuntu's kernel changes are generally backported security fixes or features, and that kernel patches can only in extremely rare circumstances cause application imcompatibilities.

Much of the developments software are incompatible with ubuntu, and a particular executable is needed.

Linux graphics drivers, while they've improved in leaps and bounds in the last few years, are still pretty bad and pretty slow. Keep in mind that Linux is having to compete against graphics companies with control over the hardware designs and specs as well as decades of experience.

Isn't only the drivers, it's the X11 system itself. It have a lot of pain ideas inside it, good for what it was inteded for (namenly, the use of a gui inside the Berkeley University, also remotely), but the use of TCP as standard protocol (I think now also the IPC Posix pipes) cannot to the work well against a system that is incorporated in the kernel itself, like the Cocoa of MacOS X and the GUI/Aero of Windows. They're who get the performance. X11 have the funny (by now it's only funny) possibility to tunnel X11 session on another X11 server, but at a very heavy cost of performance.

More-so now, but they all stole their ideas from linux. And the original is always the best.

I really dunno, but maybe these programs are as well as the original. And yes, also Beryl stoled it's idea from Aero. Without Aero, there will be only metacity

[ichwar]

So you're saying ubuntu 1 (or whatever the first ubuntu was called) is better than ubuntu 9.04? xD

No, lol.
Ubuntu 9.04 is just an updated version of ubuntu 1.04.
But what microsft has done is stolen the whole ideas of multiple desktops, simultaneous logins, levels of permssions, etc. from Linux and then implemented them on windos in a rather buggy way.

[galaxyAbstractor]

No, lol.
Ubuntu 9.04 is just an updated version of ubuntu 1.04.
But what microsft has done is stolen the whole ideas of multiple desktops, simultaneous logins, levels of permssions, etc. from Linux and then implemented them on windos in a rather buggy way.

Multiple desktops aren't a feature of windows. You need a program like Deskspace for it.

[xmaverick]

No, lol.
Ubuntu 9.04 is just an updated version of ubuntu 1.04.
But what microsft has done is stolen the whole ideas of multiple desktops, simultaneous logins, levels of permssions, etc. from Linux and then implemented them on windos in a rather buggy way.

Xenix was (and still is) from Microsoft. And is far far far far before Linux.

Returning IT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt7AQWPPB2s

Also with a list of software to do desktop.

And, for all linux users:

tecnically, LINUX itself have no graphic desktop, X11 is the desktop environmet FOR ALL NIXES, and also beryl is a "third party" software that comes with some distros or can be installed by user by compiling the sources. So it's like as I can compile Beryl on my Windows Box and launch it. (And maybe it's possible with some modification)

Check also:

http://www.desktopfx.net/
Edit:
See also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pOxtnE8ZP8

And the Vista Beryl version :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGkIwPQCVeI

and you can check out a bunch of these on YouTube. Some are free, some other are based on commercial sofware. But you can do as the same as Compiz/Beryl on Windows too.