Linux more stable than XP?

[Geminias]

I'm bored and I like to argue so I figure I will point out my conclusions.

After using Linux exclusively for 1.5 years and Windows ever since 95 I've realized that I've spent more time poring over how to "get things working" in Linux than all my Windows fixing error time combined. This is in part because hardware manufacturers mostly focus on making their hardware work on Windows. But I would argue another reason... unstandardization. Getting my hardware configured properly on Linux took a lot of time, but that is all dwarfed by the amount of time I've spent trying to configure applications that were built for yes BUILT FOR linux. With each new kernel that seemingly offers no semblance of backwards compatibility here I am forced to "get things working" again. I'll never forget the two occasions I ran "yum update" and could barely get my computer to boot let alone salvage my many hours worth of customizations and configurations. But that was before I met Debian. I know I would have given up on Linux altogether if Fedora was the only option. To this day I think it's a bloated piece of crap. But that's another story... Yes, about unstandardization, I really think the free software and open source community has one major drawback, in that it's impossible to enforce standards. Most apps compile with a simple ./configure && make && make install but not all. And of those, how many compile sweetly and bite you on the ass when you attempt to use it? Or fail in the process of compiling. Package managers certainly are wonderful things - if not for them Linux would be too much of a waste of time to bother.

At the end of the day - Windows is definitely the OS of choice for anyone not interested in spending loads of time on their computer. For someone like me however, who enjoys tinkering, and endless customizations, and open source... Linux is my only option. My relationship with Linux is kind of like me and the last female on Earth, if that scenario ever should arise I hope she's more beautiful than Linux currently is.

So is Linux more stable? I don't know how anyone on earth can complain that they see a "Blue screen of death" the odd time under windows (especially XP where it is rare) when it is clear that despite the linux filesystem being superior and the design more dynamic, you do have to spend thousands of times more time "fiddling" to get the system you want, the applications you want working, and finally the whole process of keeping things working with the persistent kernel upgrades that call for revamping your whole system (depending what apps you are using). Some would say: "don't update if your system works good now" that's actually what I was told in Fedora Core Support about the whole yum update thing. Trouble is, in theory that sounds great, but what about when a new killer app comes along and you gotta get a kernel update to run it?

It's also possible that I'm just unlucky/stupid and that most Linux users spend little time dealing with errors and configuration issues. So that's why I created this thread... thoughts?

[rdrake]

Two things:

1. I get the odd BSOD from Windows XP here and there still, but it's mostly just from drivers. It's still a lot better than any other version of Windows I've used so far, though.
   
2. There are alternatives to Linux.
   

[Mazer]

I'll admit Linux sucks. I do prefer it to Windows though. More of a "it works for me" deal than me caring about stability or anything. Both systems have been stable enough for my needs.

You mention that "Windows is definitely the OS of choice for anyone not interested in spending loads of time on their computer". I'm not an OSX user, but is there any reason why you don't talk about it or is this just a Windows-Linux comparison?

[Dan]

I think you are mixing up a system being stable with it being easy to set up and get working. Stable basicly means that it can run with out crashing or runing in to errors for a given periode of time and not how easy you can set it up. In terms of " Linux more stable than XP" i think there is litte debate that it is.

Now what your problem seems to be is how easy linux is to set up, upgrade and use daly. In this area you are probly right that on average XP is easyer to use then your average linux distro. However this mostly becues XP lmits costiumziabliltiy and overly simplfys everything.

I whould say it is realy up to the distro for how much time you will need to spend on seting things up. Things like suse are almost setup free and can even be easyer to install then windows.

[md]

Linux is more stable then Windows. It's not even a fair comparison.

As for setup, yes setting things up on windows is sometimes easier (don't get me started with multiple hosted domains on IIS, or DNS with microsoft servers...) however there really isn't a whole lot of choice in what you can customize. Linux gives you choice even where most people don't know the difference.

So yes, linux takes more time to setup; but setup is a onetime thing, stability is constant. In the end linux stability trumps setup easily.

[wtd]

md @ Sun Aug 05, 2007 8:09 am wrote:

So yes, linux takes more time to setup; but setup is a onetime thing, stability is constant. In the end linux stability trumps setup easily.

Your post is server centric, so I'll take on the desktop:

Linux is easier to setup, and quicker, assuming you have a decent package manager. There's no time lost hunting down installers.

[Geminias]

Yeah I agree with everything you guys said, except "in the end linux stability trumps setup easily."

Although not explicitly stated, my argument was the fact that no one should choose linux because it is "more stable". The principle being, if you don't enjoy spending time fixing errors, than stick with Windows. Despite how many BSOD you get, Linux configuration errors will cost you ten-fold (probably more) whatever time you spend "fixing" Windows errors.

I realize there is no doubt the Linux system is more stable than Windows, however the reason I don't agree Linux "stability trumps setup times" is because Linux so often destroys your setups with buggy upgrades that cause damage to existing setups (or sometimes upgrades that warn in that 10 page long documentation of what damage can occur, which is almost the same thing as not warning you - lol - who honestly reads that stuff all the time? )

Now, if you think about it, does it really matter if the system architecture is more stable if the wall paper keeps falling off causing you to spend time "fixing" things.

Viewed purely in time, windows could be said to be more stable and dependable, because it costs you far less time to upkeep it. After all, time is money.

Sorry to be so wordy I'm tired and not too clever right now...


EDIT:
(But I should add - using a linux kernel to run a server is probably better than windows in every way because you have to worry about far less things to break your system. I believe I had my server running for a year without having to do anything except initial setup. But for a desktop where I'm constantly testing out new programs it has been nuts how much debugging time I've gotten myself into.) Windows sucks, but at least if your not in the mood to fiddle around, you can always depend on downloading a .exe that works at the click of a mouse. The same just cannot be said for linux because not everything can be found in a package manager.

[Mazer]

I think you're talking more about usability then. And I'll agree, not having a binary is a big pain in the ass. Package managers alleviate this problem though. Quite a bit, actually, since I can search the repositories and avoid going to a website altogether.

As for upgrades breaking the system, I've had that happen to me maybe on-- has it happened to me? Let's say once or twice since I've started using Ubuntu on my desktop ~3 years ago, and I install updates whenever I'm made aware of them.

[rdrake]

Again, I've never had Ubuntu just break itself. Everything just worked and was easy as can be. After checking out the Ubuntu guide, one could have a complete Linux system working in under an hour that's stable and just works right.

The only distribution I've had break on its own (and I've used dozens!) was Gentoo.

Oh and for servers, everybody whose anybody runs FreeBSD on their server.

[md]

Geminias @ 2007-08-05, 6:22 am wrote:

Although not explicitly stated, my argument was the fact that no one should choose linux because it is "more stable". The principle being, if you don't enjoy spending time fixing errors, than stick with Windows. Despite how many BSOD you get, Linux configuration errors will cost you ten-fold (probably more) whatever time you spend "fixing" Windows errors.

I have spent such a small amount of time setting up and maintaining my system vs. the amount of time I use it that it is not even worth thinking about. If your spending that much time setting things up then you are probably doing something wrong.

Geminias @ 2007-08-05, 6:22 am wrote:

I realize there is no doubt the Linux system is more stable than Windows, however the reason I don't agree Linux "stability trumps setup times" is because Linux so often destroys your setups with buggy upgrades that cause damage to existing setups (or sometimes upgrades that warn in that 10 page long documentation of what damage can occur, which is almost the same thing as not warning you - lol - who honestly reads that stuff all the time? )

No software install I have ever run destroyed my previous system; with the exception of a major system base upgrade that broke my networking because I did not read the very explicit instructions of how to finish the upgrade. I know Gentoo isn't for everyone; but surely other distro's do something similar to emerge in that they won't overwrite config files you have changed? To do otherwise would be plain stupid! Likewise not reading the documentation and then blaming the problems on the system you are using is stupid. The docs usually list the possible problems and the solutions to those problems, if you don't read them then it's your fault things break.

While your distro of choice does make a difference, there is no reason at all to be spending that much time setting things up. Either you are doing a whole lot of weird things or aren't reading the documentation, both of which place the blame for long config times on you. Hell, I can do a complete Gentoo install in 20 hours, most of that I don't even need to be at the computer as all it's doing is compiling things. It takes *maybe* an hour or an hour and a half to get a computer setup exactly as I like it. For reference it took me forever to get windows updated last time I installed it, and another long time to get all the software I wanted. For me windows took WAY too long and cost WAY too much; my time is worth significant amounts of money.

[apomb]

Quote:

After using Linux exclusively for 1.5 years and Windows ever since 95 I've realized that I've spent more time poring over how to "get things working" in Linux than all my Windows fixing error time combined.

I also had this very similar experience, however, when i was using windows back in 95, i was not the one to do the "fiddling" and when i eventually started using my own computers and was the one doing the fiddling, i found it MUCH easier to fix things (documentation and forums) in linux than if i ever had any problems in windows. I think what you are talking about there is also a learning curve that is surely steep with linux, and since Windows was your (and many of our) first OS experience you do not recall the learning curve of it. So based on 1.5 years of solid Linux experience, you simply might not have conquered the learning curve for Linux yet.

[Geminias]

Just changed my Login Theme via the Login Manager and now I can't login to Ubuntu graphically. Now it's gonna take me at least an hour to figure out where the configuration files are for login manager and undo them, because I think if I uninstall gdm and reinstall I'll lose my hotkeys which I just spent loads of time setting up.

Hmm.. can you skip the login manager and get gnome back if you login first then startx via command line? (I'd test this myself if I didn't have to figure out how to stop the login manager trying to load on init 7 (or whatever ctrl-alt-f7 is called) preventing me from starting x on another runlevel)

EDIT: Hahaha, I killed gdm then started x and tried to fix the login window settings via the gui, but it said GDM was still not started. So I suppose GDM is not part of the X server? Anyways, then I start GDM and it demands a new x server so I allow it. Then I get it switching from my broken login to my desktop back and forth back and forth... In the time it allotted me between switching x servers I managed to use the GUI app to revert the login window settings.

So I exaggerated when I said an hour to fix... I think it was ten minutes. But still pretty scary experience for just wanting a new login window. If this isn't bad programming or the result of unstandardization amoug open source developers... what can be to blame? I used the standard installation method of a new login theme and it broke my system.

I decided to put this post here to take you on one of my adventures with linux. The point is that this is not an adventure any of us should have went on. I can see if I was trying to do things that were considered unnatural and experimental - but I wanted a login window and in the process it FORCED me to learn more about how linux works so I could fix it.

Again, I'm not totally complaining here, I do like how things are fixable in Linux if you got the knowledge. My point is there are times I want to learn and times I don't. If i wanted to learn what the GDM was etc. I would try to install some experimental theme and get it working... I wouldn't use the standard user friendly method of installing it. Wait... is there such a thing as a standard user friendly way of doing things in Linux if you can't depend on it to work 100% of the time?

[wtd]

If you stay within the bounds of a well-established routine, then things are a cinch. Once you step outside of that, things start to get complicated. That applies to both Windows and Linux.

Chances are you'll find more help in the Linux world, and it won't be of the "let me help you reinstall Windows and get back to the routine." It'll be the kind of help that helps you achieve your original goal.

[Geminias]

I agree but there should be limits. Installing themes should be one of those dependable aspects of Linux. Something you should never have to worry will break your system.

I have nothing more to say on the subject, I think Linux is less stable than Windows because no matter what you try to do there's a possibility you'll have to spend time reversing it to get your system back. You cannot depend on anything to work in Linux. This is exacerbated by the fact that hardware manufacturers are not supportive of the free-software community.

I'll never use windows again, but that's because of the linux community and everything else except the fact that Linux is more stable, cause it's not. It breaks all too often.

[Mazer]

I still don't get how a change of the GDM theme could screw things up so badly. Can we get details?