Mythbusting Linux: Linux is more stable than Windows
Stability is very often used as a marketing factor for Linux, or considered as something that gives Linux some edge over Microsoft Windows systems. As usual in Linux vs. Windows debates, many overstatements are made, and some people seem to think that Windows does nothing but crashes and prints out blue screened error messages. In reality there are many sides to this story, and the answer is far from obvious. So here we go mythbusting Linux part II: Linux is more stable than Windows.
Again we immediately run to the problem of defining that what are we actually comparing. As said before, Linux actually refers to the kernel of the operating system and that Linux comes in all kinds of shapes as sizes from mobile phones to super computers. To narrow things down we focus on modern desktop oriented Linux distributions. I have personally tried most of them, and have experience in openSUSE, Ubuntu, Mandriva and I am currently writing this using PCLinuxOS 2008. Windows also comes in various versions and editions, Windows XP being the market leader and Vista (various editions) being the most recent. I have very little Vista experience, so I will only touch that in this article, and focus on XP.
First of all I have to say that Windows XP is actually pretty good. It has been matured, service packed, patched and updated for seven years or so. That is actually an incredibly long life cycle for the operating system, and even today XP can tackle basic desktop needs very well. If good quality drivers are available for your hardware, it will be solid as a rock, unless You ruin it yourself by installing low quality software. Windows is the dominant operating system on the market, so you are likely to get good drivers for the hardware, or at least updates if defects are found. The quality of the software one installs on top of Windows defines the overall stability experience for the end-user. My desktop PC has Windows XP that I installed some 1,5 years ago and it has served me flawlessly.
Modern desktop Linux distributions have a furious development cycles releasing new versions once or twice a year. This means that the beta and release candidate testing periods are very short, usually only matters of weeks. Unfortunately a fresh Linux distribution on release date tends to contain a lot of bugs. Linux distros, like Windows, have on-line updating features and patches and updates are usually released a lot right after the release. Download and install Ubuntu 7.10 (from October 2007) today, and a huge load of fixes are available via the updater right after install. So Microsoft is not the only one pushing out service packs to improve their product quality. And the bugs of Linux distros can be very visible ones too: My Ubuntu suddenly lost all theme and icon settings, the Start button equilavent of Mandriva was visually broken, and openSUSE opens unnecessary Xconsole window if I enable clock synchronization via NTP Internet server.
Drivers and hardware support is a whole another story under Linux. Unfortunately hardware vendors are not keen on the idea of releasing their drivers open sourced, which has lead to the fact that Linux driver support is far worse than on Windows. I cannot use a native ATI driver on my Thinkpad T41, since none is available, so I have to use a 3rd party developed open source equivalent. And speaking of my ATI card, all Linux distros except Mandriva incorrectly configure this laptop for 3D desktop usage, so I have to manually edit the settings to make it work. Even with everything configured properly, 3D games seem to be a bit unstable on this computer and tend to crash or jam occasionally - I am not yet 100% sure what the issue is, but based on what I have learned from the net is that the problems are in the drivers.
So if one thinks that “I will intall Linux over Windows and never have problems again”, then one will most likely be disappointed. But there is a different side to this story as well. Linux at the core is rock solid. We here have been running our own web server for few years, and not once it has crashed, jammed, booted or had any issues with it. I haven’t checked recently but I think we around 500 days of uptime on this server since we did a complete reinstall due to mandatory update. And all the time the server is working, serving millions of database queries and sending the content to thousands of readers. In server usage, such stability simply does not exist in the Windows world, and that is why Linux has conquered the server market.
Just as I am writing this, our tech admin Xfiler dropped in to brag about his new Lenovo Thinkpad. He said it had Vista preinstalled, and it had crashed on him on the first day of use. I don’t have enough Vista experience to make conclusions myself, but based on the stuff I have read and heard, it has some maturity issues. So did Windows XP several years ago, but most likely Vista will mature after one or two service packs, just like the Linux distributions will mature after receiving a few months worth of updates.
So is the myth busted? To some extent I think that it really is. A user installing XP or a modern desktop Linux is more likely to find bugs on the Linux distro. Keep in mind that I am talking about basic desktop usage here, in other environment the situation can turn around completely. No matter what operating system you run, it is also a matter of configuration. At my work we have a customized Windows XP installations made by the IT department, and they are far less stable than my home setup made by myself. So your mileage may vary.
Yes, you will find bugs in any OS. Linux, Unix, Mac OS and Windows. The thing is are those bugs show stopping. In Windows a lot of times when you go have a bug and it does show a crash in the GUI you have to reboot the whole system. While in Linux you just restart X.
Also in Linux you dont get spyware. While in Windows almost every regular user has bumped into spyware at one time or another. As you know spyware causes stability issues. Viruses cause stability issues. You are more likely to see them in Windows then in Linux. And if you have a problem in Linux it still most likely will not take the whole machine down.
I have never seen a regular desktop user take a Linux or Mac OS machine down for that matter. They just keep on ticking. While in Windows when you get a lockup the WHOLE machine locks up and you may have to hold the power button down and crash the machine to get it back up and running!
And that goes to the point that the GUI alone not an OS make.
In most desktop distros one gets a lot of programs, which is not the case with Windows. To put up a similar desktop, one must install into Windows some programs etc. backup and office applications.
With these modifications, assuming done properly, Windows XP still don’t crash too often but with low-memory systems it’s usability is seriously compromised. That is what I would include into stability compariment, since waiting a minute for an application to start in Windows takes approximately the same time as rebooting crashed X.
On the other hand, RAM is cheap these days
QUOTE:
“I have never seen a regular desktop user take a Linux or Mac OS machine down for that matter. They just keep on ticking. While in Windows when you get a lockup the WHOLE machine locks up and you may have to hold the power button down and crash the machine to get it back up and running!”
I use PCLinusOS for personal use on an Compaq laptop built in 2001.. I don’t know the spec’s of the top of my head (I think ~256Mb RAM), but this is my experience:
I can run 3D desktops (compiz/beryl) on this antiquated machine.. There is no way I could even install vista on this machine, more or less use Aero! I think this says alot for the inherent efficiency of linux.
However, after a recent series of online updates to my system I have for the firt time ever in my linux experience, experienced the ‘Frozen computer’ that requires holding the power button down to restart the machine.. this only happens when using firefox and seems to be related to my wireless connection, so it probably isn’t a linux issue per se…
..because of the hardware / driver issue I have to use a windows driver for my wireless card in linux and I think this is causing the problems, not linux directly. I probably need to cough up the $10 for a compatible card, just haven’t taken the time to do it
QUOTE:
“However, after a recent series of online updates to my system I have for the firt time ever in my linux experience, experienced the ‘Frozen computer’ that requires holding the power button down to restart the machine.. this only happens when using firefox and seems to be related to my wireless connection, so it probably isn’t a linux issue per se…
..because of the hardware / driver issue I have to use a windows driver for my wireless card in linux and I think this is causing the problems, not linux directly. I probably need to cough up the $10 for a compatible card, just haven’t taken the time to do it ;)”
That is very strange that Firefox would lock up the Linux kernel since the GUI is just another application and does not actually directly access the Kernel. I can see locking up X to the point that you can’t even do a control, alt, backspace but you still can do a Control, ALT, F2 or F3 etc to get to the shell then log in and kill the process. But totally lock up the machine is very, very strange.
That is the cool part of Linux (Something you can’t even do with the Mac OS)
But I guess anything is possible?
The real problem we have here, just like everywhere else, is fundamentalism. Why does it have to be one or the other? The beauty of Linux is that it makes it easy to use multiple OS’s, even different versions of the same OS if you want.
The truth of the matter is that neither Windows nor Linux are for everyone. Anyone who tells you that Linux is better without explaining why it’s better for YOU, doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
The other important thing is that you should make your own decisions. So many people will tell you that you have to do things this way or that way. Linux people will tell you that you can’t use a proprietary driver or you’re evil. Windows people will call you stupid if you don’t think eye-candy is enough of a reason to shell out big bucks. It’s your computer, do what you think is best.
I’ve already said why I think Linux is great. I will also admit that I think Windows is kind of crummy. One of the great features of Linux is that you can run it without affecting your Windows system at all. Almost any Linux can be installed in a dual-boot system ( as long as Windows is installed first ). There are also versions that can run from a CD or thumb drive. Try it before you wipe windows form your hard drive, you might just find that you like them both!
If you want to try Linux, that’s great, just don’t wipe Windows when you do. Your computer geek friend may be well intentioned, but if you follow his advice you probably won’t be able to figure out what brand of wireless card you have so he can help you get it running under Linux.
Good luck, you’ll need it no matter which OS you run.
While Windows does have its issues, Linux has just as many. Trust me, I pray for the day that SOMEONE, ANYONE brings out an OS that will completely crushes Microsoft to its core. The main issue that I have with Linux is that you have to study to get it to work. I don’t want to be on the internet (providing you can find a driver for your ethernet card) trying to get my printer that I just bought to work by chatting in every forum known to man. After booing and hissing from every nerd because I bought a new printer and did not build my own,I realize that I will need to get on Ebay and find one from the mid to late 70’s maybe early 80’s that someone has taken the time to write a driver that works for it. I have been told that the command line is as easy as typing “fly” and you will soar like an eagle (or is that python) but yet there are commands like “man” and “yum” that have nothing to do with what they mean. Yum doesn’t bring me food or taste good to me,it brings me updates through “rpm” and god help you if your a Gearhead, that last one will throw you for a loop (again, providing you can get on the internet). Windows for the most part, works. Also the really cool thing is if you search the internet (which I can get on because my ethernet card came with the drivers) there are a lot of people out in Geek land (which is like Disneyworld to me) creating free software. Software that is free and better (Gimp) than the $429.00 (Corel) software that you can buy at the software giants. Folks, don’t get me wrong, I REALLY want Linux to be the one and the only OS and I really have tried it, I just don’t get it.
[...] with Linux users. You’ll find that the stability of Linux vs. that of Windows is up for debate : Mythbusting Linux: Linux is more stable than Windows | BitBurners.com (BETA) | We Burn a Bit! [...]
[...] First of all, the PCLOS seems to be very stable and doesn’t have any of the embarrassing bugs that the bleeding edge distributions have. The upgrades are incremental, so the risk of regression errors (new bugs introduced by updates and [...]
The author has written quite a frank and sensible article which I think is true, but in response MLG has made some comments that are grossly unfair to Linux, that is what i think the author is trying to avoid.
QUOTE:
“I don’t want to be on the internet (providing you can find a driver for your ethernet card) ”
Which Linux distro have you been using? Are you talking about wireless-Ethernet only?
I used a few distros and not once have I found a wired ethernet card that any of them does not detect properly, Linux has an outstanding ability in this area,better than windows by a mile, gosh man be fair!!
on the other hand I quite often have to hunt for drivers somewhere to make windows use a good deal of the less common Ethernet cards, case in point I have a Dell precision 380 workstation with a Broadcom Ethernet card the machine ships with Windows Xp but if you do a clean install of Windows you will have to fetch the Dell driver CD to get on the internet, I installed Ubuntu 8.04 on the same machine and I do not have to reach for any other disc, I am on the internet immediately.
The same on an Inspiron 9100 laptop, even the wireless worked more quickly than a Windows setup, the Broadcom firmware is downloaded and configured easily by Ubuntu. I installed windows on this machine there is no wired Ethernet, no wireless Ethernet, no sound, no video drivers, display set to 800 x 600, I had to go to another connected machine and fetch the drivers as the driver disc for this laptop has been mislaid long ago by the previous owner, not so with Ubuntu you can get to work immediately after installation
almost all USB printers and scanners are detected by the modern linux distros now, my Canon pixma 2000 is one of them,
and BTW Linux should not be the one and only OS it never will be, do not be ridiculous, if you want Linux to become better take some time and read something worthwhile and join the geeks or at least file some sensible bug reports with the ones who are involved in many lovely projects (UBUNTU,GENTOO,GNOME,KDE,GIMP INKSCAPE ETC.), coming here spouting your unjust argument or ignorance does not make you any smarter than Goofy.
First of all I will say this: I have installed right now in my work, Windows 2000 Server, Windows XP Pro, CentOS, and OpenSuse.
I agree with the author that the Windows XP has matured a lot and today April, 2008 it is a very stable system. I have a windows xp running IIS and a CFTV software along with Comodo Firewall. I barely ever reboot the system, only after requierd updates.
At the same time I have to say this: The comparison was not made right. The author used the BEST windows version that has matured for 7 years and compared to some of the worst linux distributions. I think a good comparison would have been if he used CentOS (which I also use for server purposes, DNS, Apache, Qmail, Squid, Firewall) or maybe OpenSuse, or Debian. That would have made a way better comparison. It´s like, “Let’s compare Vista and RHEL” everyone that has ever messed around with both of then knows that would not be a fair match.
I have been using a CentOS distribution for Samba, FTP, and internall firewall and I’ll tell you, I think it’s been 3-4 months since my last reboot, and I think I did it just for the fear that it would stop whenever I wouldn’t be at work. Yes it is that good.
But I am talking about server purposes. My desktop at home and at work are Windows XP. And yes drivers are more readly avaliable for Windows than for Linux.
So to wrap it up, I will say this: I have a rule on what is the best OS. One has to follow certain steps to come-up with the answer. My method goes like this:
1. Find the OS that can meet your needs. (Ex. How good would be to install FreeBSD if all you want to do is to play Civilization IV with the latest video card in the market?)
2.How good are you on operating that system? (Ex: You may have a Xeon with 16GB on a Dell server, but if you have Linux installed and don’t know what the command ‘ls’ is for, that OS is not for you, or you better learn)
3.Identify what is more important to you. (Ex: Security, Stability, Hardware Support and so on…)
My two cents…..or should I say CentOS
One Love Y’all