OS WARS MEGA THREAD (Now debating proprietary vs. open-source!)

[computerex]

Dual booting isn't all that bad as long as you maintain physical separation between the OS's involved. Windows doesn't play nice with other OS's, so it's good to make it think that it's on a single boot (or all Windows multiboot) setup, and to be able to return the computer to a normal single-boot state via a BIOS setting or hardware disconnection.

I don't know what all that is about. I have had plenty of (dual-tripple-nth)boot installations without any issues, besides Windows overwriting the MBR. I typically just install the other OS's after I have installed Windows so the GRUB isn't overwritten. So if I want to create an installation of Win7, XP, Arch, and Ubuntu, I'd personally go about installing WinXP first, followed by Win7, then Arch, and then Ubuntu. But other then that I have noticed nothing that is different then having a single boot install of Windows.

 

[Tommy]

Personally I'd recommend NOT dual booting, it just causes too many headaches and issues.

What I'd suggest is you install Win7 then install sun virtual box. You'll then be able to run any OS you like on top of windows 7 (or several operating systems). You also have the ability of taking a snapshot before doing something risky on the internet or elsewhere - it's nice to be back up and running in seconds.

He stated that he's looking for fast boot times and a lightweight, fast OS. I fail to see how having to boot one OS, start a virtual box, and then boot a second OS will accomplish this. Nowhere does he imply that he would be shutting down Windows and rebooting into the second OS, rather he wants to be able to get online quickly from a cold start. Your method rather defeats the purpose for what he wants.

There are certainly reasons to run a virtual box, but this ain't one of them. It would greatly increase the time until the (second) OS is running, and the second OS will run slower under virtualisation - not faster. Creating a post-install disk image of the second OS accomplishes the same thing as the snapshot you mentioned, so there's no real gain at all for his purposes.

I've been multi-booting for years, and have had no real problems because of it. The only issues I have had was when Windows "fixed" the MBR, and that was solved by booting a live disk and re-running LILO.

As computerex said, it's far easier to install the Windows OS's first, then install any Linux distro's you like.

 

[Hielor]

He stated that he's looking for fast boot times and a lightweight, fast OS. I fail to see how having to boot one OS, start a virtual box, and then boot a second OS will accomplish this. Nowhere does he imply that he would be shutting down Windows and rebooting into the second OS, rather he wants to be able to get online quickly from a cold start. Your method rather defeats the purpose for what he wants.

There are certainly reasons to run a virtual box, but this ain't one of them. It would greatly increase the time until the (second) OS is running, and the second OS will run slower under virtualisation - not faster. Creating a post-install disk image of the second OS accomplishes the same thing as the snapshot you mentioned, so there's no real gain at all for his purposes.

I've been multi-booting for years, and have had no real problems because of it. The only issues I have had was when Windows "fixed" the MBR, and that was solved by booting a live disk and re-running LILO.

As computerex said, it's far easier to install the Windows OS's first, then install any Linux distro's you like.

I still fail to see the reason to dual-boot in the first place. Win7 comes up from sleep or hibernate in a matter of seconds, and I'd personally rather have all of files and programs accessible all the time...

 

[computerex]

I still fail to see the reason to dual-boot in the first place. Win7 comes up from sleep or hibernate in a matter of seconds, and I'd personally rather have all of files and programs accessible all the time...

I know lots of people who just boot in linux for doing light things like web surfing. It is much more secure, especially when it comes to handling sensitive information (banking, etc). Also it makes for a pleasant change.

 

[Hielor]

I know lots of people who just boot in linux for doing light things like web surfing. It is much more secure, especially when it comes to handling sensitive information (banking, etc). Also it makes for a pleasant change.

That's just it--I don't *want* a change. I want to be able to access the files that I put on my computer while I was at home, not be browsing the internet and think, "Oh, I downloaded this file/program/whatever yesterday, let's go look at that...oh, wait, now I have to reboot into my other OS."

Same goes for if you're browsing in Linux while you're out-and-about, save something, and then want to look at it later when you're at home and have Windows booted up.

As for security--your OS is as secure or insecure as you make it. I imagine that rather more bank account compromises are due to phishing or other social engineering "hacks" than to viruses acquired by the computer, and if you're keeping a firewall and AV up to date (and not browsing...ahem..."sketchy" websites) your machine will be perfectly fine for doing your banking or whatever you want. If you're using Linux or Mac and saying, "Oh, the OS is more secure" and not using an AV and firewall, you're probably less secure, because if you do run into a virus you're going to get owned. Are there fewer viruses made for these systems? Yeah. Is that because there's fewer vulnerabilities? No, not really, it's just that the payoff is so much lower because so few people use them.

 

[computerex]

That's just it--I don't *want* a change. I want to be able to access the files that I put on my computer while I was at home, not be browsing the internet and think, "Oh, I downloaded this file/program/whatever yesterday, let's go look at that...oh, wait, now I have to reboot into my other OS."

Same goes for if you're browsing in Linux while you're out-and-about, save something, and then want to look at it later when you're at home and have Windows booted up.

Well a lot of linux distributions now a days come with native reading/writing support for NTFS, so as far as documents are concerned that is not really a problem.

As for security--your OS is as secure or insecure as you make it. I imagine that rather more bank account compromises are due to phishing or other social engineering "hacks" than to viruses acquired by the computer, and if you're keeping a firewall and AV up to date (and not browsing...ahem..."sketchy" websites) your machine will be perfectly fine for doing your banking or whatever you want. If you're using Linux or Mac and saying, "Oh, the OS is more secure" and not using an AV and firewall, you're probably less secure, because if you do run into a virus you're going to get owned. Are there fewer viruses made for these systems? Yeah. Is that because there's fewer vulnerabilities? No, not really, it's just that the payoff is so much lower because so few people use them.

This made me laugh a little, specifically the bold part. If you recall, earlier in this thread you said linux is a crippled OS because it can't perform simple tasks such as playing modern games. I replied to that argument that linux is in fact capable of playing modern games, but is not targeted by many gaming companies as a platform. To that you replied that to the end user that doesn't really matter, if you pick a random modern game, most likely it won't run on the OS.

So according to your reasoning, Windows is crippled because if you take two average users, put one on a computer running Windows and the other running linux, the one running Windows will get infected much, much faster.

For the record, I don't think anybody here can disagree with me when I say that linux is more secure then Windows, in the sense that a Windows machine will be compromised far more rapidly then a linux one (if only because Windows has a much bigger user base and as a result is targeted more). Then it makes sense to use a linux to handle sensitive stuff.

To make it blatantly simple to understand, I would rather live in a barren farm then a super-mega ultra fortress if it is riddled with criminals (as far as security is concerned).

 

[insanity]

That's just it--I don't *want* a change. I want to be able to access the files that I put on my computer while I was at home, not be browsing the internet and think, "Oh, I downloaded this file/program/whatever yesterday, let's go look at that...oh, wait, now I have to reboot into my other OS."

There is, of course, an easy solution: put all your files on common space!

I have a three partition hard drive. About 100gbs for Win 7, 100gb for Ubuntu and about 500gb of an NTFS formatted drive. Because Ubuntu supports NTFS, I've never had a problem with finding my stuff. I like putting my files on the large diskspace which leaves Windows and Ubutnu partitions free to run things like FSX or LAMP servers. Oh, and there are addons for Windows which allow you to view an ext3 partition.




I swear you work for Microsoft sometimes.

 

[dbeachy1]

One does not need to work for Microsoft to appreciate Windows 7. Based on market share, it's safe to say that the general population feels the same way.

In any case, both Windows and Linux have their place in the world (I use both for work). I happen to much prefer Windows 7 for desktop and development work, but hey, to each his own...

 

[MeDiCS]

One does not need to work for Microsoft to appreciate Windows 7. Based on market share, it's safe to say that the general population feels the same way.

I have to disagree. Using the same reasoning, people do not usually use alternate browsers, like Firefox or Opera because most consider IE good. This is the reverse of what seems to be happening since Microsoft started offering browser choice in EU.

Also, since Windows market share is bigger and most users are not computer savvy, other OS don't usually gain ground because they are 'different'.

I use Kubuntu (Ubuntu-derived distro) for everything except for anything Orbiter-related and Fallout 3 :thumbup:. I've never had any problem with it, but I know how strange it may seem compared to Windows in the beginning. Today is the other way around, Windows is strange, bloated and crunky.

 

[garyw]

He stated that he's looking for fast boot times and a lightweight, fast OS. I fail to see how having to boot one OS, start a virtual box, and then boot a second OS will accomplish this. Nowhere does he imply that he would be shutting down Windows and rebooting into the second OS, rather he wants to be able to get online quickly from a cold start. Your method rather defeats the purpose for what he wants.

And I have clients who want to have super computer performance for PC prices. You don't always get what you ask for. Sometimes having the options and realising that there are better or other alternatives out there can be more use than just giving the person what they ask for because asking isn't the same as needed.

There are certainly reasons to run a virtual box, but this ain't one of them. It would greatly increase the time until the (second) OS is running, and the second OS will run slower under virtualisation - not faster. Creating a post-install disk image of the second OS accomplishes the same thing as the snapshot you mentioned, so there's no real gain at all for his purposes.

I have have primary and Virtual OSes running in less than 20 seconds. Not bad for a cold boot.
Post install disk doesn't have the same recoverability as a snapshot. Restore from disk, 30-90 minutes? Snapshot restore - 4 seconds. Handy for those quick and dirty tests. The person asking the question never actually stated the reasons for wanting dual boot so I gave an opinion and another option.

I've been multi-booting for years, and have had no real problems because of it. The only issues I have had was when Windows "fixed" the MBR, and that was solved by booting a live disk and re-running LILO.

As computerex said, it's far easier to install the Windows OS's first, then install any Linux distro's you like.

And I've been using virtualisation since before the word was popular. It's what I prefer to use. YMMV but that's what's wonderful about this thread, peoples opinions can be heard.

---------- Post added at 21:21 ---------- Previous post was at 21:19 ----------

One does not need to work for Microsoft to appreciate Windows 7. Based on market share, it's safe to say that the general population feels the same way.

In any case, both Windows and Linux have their place in the world (I use both for work). I happen to much prefer Windows 7 for desktop and development work, but hey, to each his own...

I use a full varitey of systems, Linux, Solaris, Windows and all have flaws and all have nice features. It's a matter of using the right OS for the problem which is one reason I cannot abide OS evangalisim because no OS is any better than any other.

 

[Hielor]

This made me laugh a little, specifically the bold part. If you recall, earlier in this thread you said linux is a crippled OS because it can't perform simple tasks such as playing modern games. I replied to that argument that linux is in fact capable of playing modern games, but is not targeted by many gaming companies as a platform. To that you replied that to the end user that doesn't really matter, if you pick a random modern game, most likely it won't run on the OS.

Nevermind that a lot of modern games use DirectX and are therefore Linux is not, in fact, capable of playing them without often unreliable emulators (or, in the case of the newer DX versions, at all)

So according to your reasoning, Windows is crippled because if you take two average users, put one on a computer running Windows and the other running linux, the one running Windows will get infected much, much faster.

For the record, I don't think anybody here can disagree with me when I say that linux is more secure then Windows, in the sense that a Windows machine will be compromised far more rapidly then a linux one (if only because Windows has a much bigger user base and as a result is targeted more). Then it makes sense to use a linux to handle sensitive stuff.

To make it blatantly simple to understand, I would rather live in a barren farm then a super-mega ultra fortress if it is riddled with criminals (as far as security is concerned).

Yes, if you take a bone-stock Windows machine and a bone-stock Linux machine, the Windows one will probably get infected faster. This is why you get an antivirus and a firewall.

I'd venture to guess that a Windows machine with an AV and firewall is safer than a Linux machine without. Sure, the Linux machine would be safer with, but hey--there's so few viruses you can just do without, right? Yeah, until one of them finds you.

There is, of course, an easy solution: put all your files on common space!

I have a three partition hard drive. About 100gbs for Win 7, 100gb for Ubuntu and about 500gb of an NTFS formatted drive. Because Ubuntu supports NTFS, I've never had a problem with finding my stuff. I like putting my files on the large diskspace which leaves Windows and Ubutnu partitions free to run things like FSX or LAMP servers. Oh, and there are addons for Windows which allow you to view an ext3 partition.

That allows you to share files between the OSes, but not programs. It's also rather more complicated than having a single OS and a single partition.

Would there be some advantages to having the two boot options? Sure, I guess, if cold boot times are all you care about. But it's pretty simple to just hit "sleep" or "hibernate" instead of "shut down" when you're taking your laptop on the road (or just set it up to do so automatically when you close the lid), and then it's back up and running everything you were doing previously. I haven't done any tests, but I'd bet that the resume-from-sleep startup time of Windows is better than the cold-boot time of Linux. ("what about the resume-from-sleep time of Linux," asks you? Yeah, but you're having to repeatedly switch OSes, remember?)

For me, the convenience of not needing to switch between OSes (and the complexity that involves) far outweighs any negligible performance increases.

I swear you work for Microsoft sometimes.

Where I work has no bearing on this conversation.

I have to disagree. Using the same reasoning, people do not usually use alternate browsers, like Firefox or Opera because most consider IE good. This is the reverse of what seems to be happening since Microsoft started offering browser choice in EU.

So users who are very likely picking a random choice from that screen caused Opera to get an 85% increase in downloads? That doesn't really say much about the pull of your product...

Today is the other way around, Windows is strange, bloated and crunky.

Have you actually used Win7?

--------------

All I'm suggesting is that Arrowstar try using Windows by itself before going to the hassle of setting up multiple partitions and OSes. If it doesn't meet his needs, he can easily shrink the Windows partition and make a new one for Linux. If it does meet his needs, he's saved himself a lot of work. It would, I think, be hard to argue with that course of action...

 

[insanity]

That allows you to share files between the OSes, but not programs. It's also rather more complicated than having a single OS and a single partition.

Well obviously you cannot reliably run programs like FSX under Linux, nor could you do things like packet injection in windows (again, reliably). However, I can make a spreadsheet in Open Office while doing stuff in Linux and have it there for me in excel when I need to switch back to Windows. I can download files for my Windows OS from Linux and vice-versa.

For me, the convenience of not needing to switch between OSes (and the complexity that involves) far outweighs any negligible performance increases.

That's my point! It's all about what is convenient for the user. For me, the convenience of being able to run two different platforms for different tasks far outweighs any lag in startup time and OS switches.

Where I work has no bearing on this conversation.

Naturally, I was being facetious there.

 

[Tommy]

I still fail to see the reason to dual-boot in the first place. Win7 comes up from sleep or hibernate in a matter of seconds, and I'd personally rather have all of files and programs accessible all the time...

Not everyone has a reason to dual-boot, but many of us do. I keep Windows around for Orbiter and a couple other games, and for video editing. Everything else I do is better done on Linux. Newer versions of Windows (Vista and 7) are useless to me - my primary usage is as a Digital Audio Workstation, and "Protected Path" renders newer Windows useless for that purpose. Linux offers me lower latency than ANY version of Windows, allows me to use more MIDI and audio tracks, realtime effects, and JACK allows me to route signals between apps and hardware at will. Windows just can't compare - for that purpose. So if I had to choose only one OS, it sure wouldn't be Windows.

With the exception of Axogon (video editing), Orbiter, and a couple games, I have the same programs available on Linux as I do Windows. Firefox, GIMP, Blender, etc are available for both platforms, while many of the apps I rely upon the most simply aren't available on Windows. Linux is perfectly capable of accessing (read/write) my NTFS partitions so files are shared seamlessly between the two OS's.

Before I get misunderstood, let me say that I believe Windows 7 , set up properly, to be as secure an operating system as Linux, if set up properly. However, Linux is safer for use online simply because it isn't targeted as heavily as Windows. I'm not assigning any blame or credit to either OS for that - it's just the way it is.

Dual booting isn't for everyone, but for many of us it's darn handy. For some of us it's essential in order to use our computers at their fullest capacity, for the purposes we want to use our computer for.

 

[Arrowstar]

Oh boy, look at the monster I've created.

I certainly want to thank everyone who's contributed to what I feel is a healthy discussion on the matter of dual-booting, particularly on a laptop (but also in general). I've been reading everyone's comments, preferring to stay out of the way in order to get uncolored opinions and a discussion that evolves naturally. I think we've certainly accomplished that.

So here's what I'm going to do. In a few months, after my university-issue laptop becomes my laptop , I'm going to wipe the hard drive, install Windows 7, and see how that goes for a bit. Given that I don't have any real experience with Win7, this is only prudent until I get a better grasp on its capabilities. If I sense the need for me to quickly boot into another OS for 'net/mail purposes is there, then I'll go ahead and continue to evaluate a secondary operating system (most likely Ubuntu as that's what I'm familiar with). This is basically Hielor's suggestion from a page or two ago; thank you, Hielor.

I suppose I'll keep everyone informed as to what I do, if only to offer my final opinion on the matter. Until then... let the discussion continue?

 

[eveningsky339]

I have XP and Ubuntu 9.10 happily co-existing on my laptop, but dual-booting always made me nervous... it can be treacherous. And triple-booting? Yikes.

If you want a Linux distro with your Windows XP-- er, Windows 7 installation, you may want to put Windows on your "main" computer and use a lightweight Linux, such as DSL or Puppy Linux, on an older, cheaper laptop. You could buy a fairly old machine that can handle DSL or Puppy very well.

This avoids dual-booting altogether, but you have to fork out a couple hundred bucks for an older machine.

 

[MeDiCS]

Nevermind that a lot of modern games use DirectX and are therefore Linux is not, in fact, capable of playing them without often unreliable emulators (or, in the case of the newer DX versions, at all)

His point exactly. DirectX is proprietary (and thus, not natively supported by Linux), but OpenGL is, well, open and available to both platforms. Linux and OpenGL are not common targets for game makers because (I'm speculating here), the slim market share doesn't pay off the effort. It is more than capable, but it isn't targeted.

Just as a side note, AFAIK, Wine has good DirectX support, up to version 9 or 10. It's implemented just as an OpenGL interface, so it's not really emulating everything.

I'd venture to guess that a Windows machine with an AV and firewall is safer than a Linux machine without. Sure, the Linux machine would be safer with, but hey--there's so few viruses you can just do without, right? Yeah, until one of them finds you.

And I'd say you're wrong, at least with the default configurations. Without taking into account exploits, the Linux default security model makes it hard to 'catch' a virus, because you only use root powers in very specific circumstances, limiting the damage area to your personal files. Also, any executable under Linux needs a specific attribute before you're able to actually run it.

Windows on the other hand, makes you the admin by default, and anything that seems like an executable will be run by the system without hesitation.

Now, if you put exploits (kernel and 'services'), Windows clearly lose. Even if you run an exploitable app in a limited account, privilege-escalation exploits are much more common in Windows than are in Linux, and AVs can only defend from known threads.

In the end, you can make Windows as secure as most *NIXes, but that requires more effort and result in a big and slow system.

So users who are very likely picking a random choice from that screen caused Opera to get an 85% increase in downloads? That doesn't really say much about the pull of your product...

I'd completely agree with you if I had read about similar increases of popularity in all 12 browsers from the list.

Have you actually used Win7?

No. I don't like pirating and I'm not rich, but if it's too much like Vista, it isn't an option. Maybe when it consolidates, I'll consider switching from XP.

 

[Hielor]

His point exactly. DirectX is proprietary (and thus, not natively supported by Linux), but OpenGL is, well, open and available to both platforms. Linux and OpenGL are not common targets for game makers because (I'm speculating here), the slim market share doesn't pay off the effort. It is more than capable, but it isn't targeted.

Just as a side note, AFAIK, Wine has good DirectX support, up to version 9 or 10. It's implemented just as an OpenGL interface, so it's not really emulating everything.

Since OpenGL is *also* available on Windows, I would think that if it were at least as good as DirectX, you'd see almost everyone using it and almost no one using DirectX, since with OpenGL you get support for multiple platforms too. If OpenGL was better, wouldn't you have everyone using that?

I haven't used either very extensively, but the evidence certainly suggests to me that DirectX is doing something better than OpenGL, otherwise it wouldn't be so widely used.

Windows on the other hand, makes you the admin by default, and anything that seems like an executable will be run by the system without hesitation.

Not since Vista.

Now, if you put exploits (kernel and 'services'), Windows clearly lose. Even if you run an exploitable app in a limited account, privilege-escalation exploits are much more common in Windows than are in Linux, and AVs can only defend from known threads.

In the end, you can make Windows as secure as most *NIXes, but that requires more effort and result in a big and slow system.

Vista and Win7 are rather more secure than XP, and your comments suggest that you're talking about XP.

I'd completely agree with you if I had read about similar increases of popularity in all 12 browsers from the list.

Just because not all browsers announce "Hey guys! Look! We're slightly less unpopular now!" doesn't mean they didn't also have similar increases. And you wouldn't want to look at all 12, just the 4 (or is it 5?) on the first page.

No. I don't like pirating and I'm not rich, but if it's too much like Vista, it isn't an option. Maybe when it consolidates, I'll consider switching from XP.

What do you mean, "consolidates?" And I don't need to write a review of Win7 for you, there's plenty of those out on the internet.

 

[MeDiCS]

Since OpenGL is *also* available on Windows, I would think that if it were at least as good as DirectX, you'd see almost everyone using it and almost no one using DirectX, since with OpenGL you get support for multiple platforms too. If OpenGL was better, wouldn't you have everyone using that?

I haven't used either very extensively, but the evidence certainly suggests to me that DirectX is doing something better than OpenGL, otherwise it wouldn't be so widely used.

The logic is flawed (widespread use does not mean a better product), but I can't compare them myself.

Vista and Win7 are rather more secure than XP, and your comments suggest that you're talking about XP.

Yes, it was loosely specific to XP and pre-XP versions. I didn't do much research about Vista and Win7 security, but we're talking about Microsoft here. Not wanting to be an Microsoft-hater, but when it comes to security, it's products always lag behind.

Hmm, will take a better look at it. Maybe some things can change...

Just because not all browsers announce "Hey guys! Look! We're slightly less unpopular now!" doesn't mean they didn't also have similar increases. And you wouldn't want to look at all 12, just the 4 (or is it 5?) on the first page.

Propaganda is good for all. The market share has certainly increased for all, but since only Opera announced that big increase, I'll take that the others didn't experience the same.

What do you mean, "consolidates?" And I don't need to write a review of Win7 for you, there's plenty of those out on the internet.

More widely used, more throughfully tested and with better driver/app support. I don't care much about UI, but I really hate BSODs and strange crashes.

Maybe I'll wait until SP2.

 

[Linguofreak]

That's just it--I don't *want* a change. I want to be able to access the files that I put on my computer while I was at home, not be browsing the internet and think, "Oh, I downloaded this file/program/whatever yesterday, let's go look at that...oh, wait, now I have to reboot into my other OS."

Except that you generally don't have to. Most Windows software that one can legally download will work under Wine, and for files that aren't programs, I'm hard pressed to think of any format that nothing on Linux can read...

Same goes for if you're browsing in Linux while you're out-and-about, save something, and then want to look at it later when you're at home and have Windows booted up.

Simple, you save whatever you anticipate needing on both systems on the NTFS side of your system (Or, although I haven't done this myself, use an ext driver for Windows).

As for security--your OS is as secure or insecure as you make it.

Very much true. The biggest security hole is always the human. Doesn't make it good to have other security holes, though.

I imagine that rather more bank account compromises are due to phishing or other social engineering "hacks" than to viruses acquired by the computer, and if you're keeping a firewall and AV up to date (and not browsing...ahem..."sketchy" websites) your machine will be perfectly fine for doing your banking or whatever you want.

I have a firewall, but I'm not aware of any anti-virus for Linux geared towards finding Linux viruses. The lack of such an AV is probably a combination of hubris (which will eventually bite the community in the butt), and uncertainty as to what to target (since the biggest threats are possible future viruses, rather than current ones). Then again, I think that as far as AV is concerned, browsing habits are more important than having or not having AV.

If you're using Linux or Mac and saying, "Oh, the OS is more secure" and not using an AV and firewall, you're probably less secure, because if you do run into a virus you're going to get owned.

Certainly. Especially if it leads you to visit more dangerous parts of the Web less cautiously.

Are there fewer viruses made for these systems? Yeah. Is that because there's fewer vulnerabilities? No, not really, it's just that the payoff is so much lower because so few people use them.

Yes and no. Certainly a part of it is low market share. I certainly believe that if Linux ever picks up a healthy desktop market share, we'll see a fair number of viruses, despite all the protests of the hardcore fanboys that their systems are invulnerable. I also believe that we'll see less than we would on Windows at a similar market share.

But another part of it is that Unix-likes have historically had good market share in sectors where security is more important than the historical market share of DOS/Windows.

DOS/Windows was originally built for single user systems with limited/no net connectivity. Unix-likes were originally built for multi-user systems and have a longer history with the net. Linux has a large historical (and current) market share on servers. Modern Windows, and Desktop Linux, have their primary market share in single-user net-connected systems. The result is that Windows tends to be a bit insecure for a net connected system, and Linux tends to be security heavy, sometimes to the point of the default policies being annoying on a single-user system.

But, as you said, the OS is as secure or insecure as you make it. And as I said, the human in the loop is quite often the biggest security hole in a system, and that doesn't only apply to computer systems.

 

[Tommy]

Since OpenGL is *also* available on Windows, I would think that if it were at least as good as DirectX, you'd see almost everyone using it and almost no one using DirectX, since with OpenGL you get support for multiple platforms too. If OpenGL was better, wouldn't you have everyone using that?

I haven't used either very extensively, but the evidence certainly suggests to me that DirectX is doing something better than OpenGL, otherwise it wouldn't be so widely used.

DirectX has a couple advantages over OpenGL. One is that since it is more commonly used in games, etc, the Video Card manufactures like ATI and NVidia put more effort into the DirectX component of their drivers than they do the OpenGL, resulting in better performance with DirectX. OpenGL is capable of the same quality graphics as DirectX, but the drivers (at least for cards targeted at the home desktop market rather than the CAD workstation) are optimized better for DirectX.

The other advantage is that DirectX is a more "complete" solution. OpenGL is only about graphics, and doesn't do anything for sound or joystick/controllers. Writing a game for OpenGL means you also have to use other solutions such as SDL and ALSA, which may not be as portable. Having all those other capabilities in one SDK makes things easier to code (thus faster to code, and cheaper) than using a mixed bag.