Linux or Windows for programming?

Pages: 1234
Hopefully.. Linux, is the KING. :P
For a different view:

I switched to Ubuntu about 7 or so months ago. Figured I'd give it a shot.

I'm not impressed at all. I'm switching back to Windows next comp upgrade. I never want to touch *nix again.

Though that's more of a end-user standpoint. From a "which is easier to program for" standpoint, they're about the same in my book, since I typically use crossplatform libs for everything anyway.
Just going to say this: If you can't use Windows, don't even think of programming FOR Windows.

And the same goes for Linux. I for once, just CAN'T use Linux, so I don't dare program for it.
IMO, Linux needs more Windows developers to target it. A lot of GUIs in programs I've used on Ubuntu suck bigtime. I think Linux devs (or maybe just Linux users in general) have no idea what a good GUI is.
most of the same GUI are on Window and Gnu/Linux , like SDL , Qt , WxWindow , OpenGL, even Gtk can.

your just use to window looks Disch !
I never cared for ubuntu . I used it for 6 months i distro hope for a while.
i like Debian , Mepis , Puppy .
these look interesting Fedora , Slitaz(30 mg distro)

If (game makers) made games for Gnu/Linux . I would never use Windows again .

Gnu/Linux is freedom.
i agree with drakemagi, but you know you can get wine for linux and windows programs work on it.
so far its been working fine for me. cinema 4D and macromedia programs work fine thanks to wine ;)
i dont think ill ever go back to windows :D
@Disch
WHAT?
IMO, Linux needs more Windows developers to target it. A lot of GUIs in programs I've used on Ubuntu suck bigtime. I think Linux devs (or maybe just Linux users in general) have no idea what a good GUI is.

I thought the Ubuntu GUI was overdone and too focused at being easy to use :l
That's actually why I'm switching to Arch when I get my computer back. I want to do it all myself. Then I'll try LFS.

Slitaz(30 mg distro)

Slitaz is good. I used it briefly.
Anothe good Linux OS is Damn Small Linux. It's excellent. It can run inside your OS (it runs in ring 0 inside windows, yes) and does all of it's operations inside 128 MiB of RAM.
If you want to consider yourself a knowledgeable computer fella, go with unix/linux. That means anything except windows. Windows is fun, but it isn't a open source OS.
It's not just because it's closed-source that I don't like it. It's just lazily written, and too much emphasis is placed on the GUI. The largest difference between e.g. XP and vista is the GUI.

The result is this:
I never want to touch *nix again.
lot of GUIs in programs I've used on Ubuntu suck bigtime.


Who cares about how graphically intensive a GUI is? The point of a GUI is not to use up 300 MiB of video memory. The point of a GUI is to make it easier to use a program.

You think this is a good GUI?
http://www.petri.co.il/images/vista_explorer_1.gif

I hate the windows GUI. Even nautilus, slow-loading file browser of doom is better than that.

A 'good' GUI, to me, is one that's simple, doesn't use too much video memory, and is easy to use.

How does GNOME not fit that specification? Or did you use KDE? If so, you have no argument. KDE 4 is horrible.

Most of the vista GUI is just flashy animations and over done graphics. GNOME and XFCE, on the other hand, are simpler.

http://www.blastwave.org/articles/BLS-0028/xfce.jpg
That is a good GUI.
Most of the vista GUI is just flashy animations and over done graphics. GNOME and XFCE, on the other hand, are simpler.
What about compiz?
I LOVE Windows for once. Simple to use and friendly. I have used Ubuntu, and sucks. I have used Kubuntu, and I loved KDE, but Kubuntu has never been stable for me: Couple of days and starts failing out of the blue.

The Compiz desktop cube is WOW!! Oh, and I guess that the ability to resize any window comes in handy, but that's something Windows lacks. Nowadays, however, is rarely ever needed to resize a window that the developer left at fixed size.

Other than that, Windows beats Linux UI-wise. Just my opinion. Don't go nuts with your flame throwers!! LOL
What about compiz?

Compiz isn't an environment, it's a dwm. Anyway, to me, it's only real uses are
a. for fun
b. it's more flexible than GNOME or KDE alone.

Sure, wobbly windows is great, but it's main use for me is to be able to do all of the things is provides, such as being able to pull full-sized windows down from the edges of the screen. Doesn't sound that great, but really, it's quite useful.

Oh, and the windows GUI only just got a snapping grid (that is, windows will snap to logical positions)? And only just got a "go to desktop" button (yeah, there's the little quick-launch icon, but nothing that was part of the actual task bar)?

KDE and GNOME have had those for ages.

Other than that, Windows beats Linux UI-wise. Just my opinion. Don't go nuts with your flame throwers!! LOL

Who cares? Linux isn't meant to have some massive flashy GUI. It's meant to be fast.

Within the kernel, Linux beats windows in every category I can think of.
In my experience, Visual Studio on Windows is by far the easiest C++ programming environment. It's very interactive and goes a long way to helping the novice in learning the language.

From an advanced developer perspective, when you factor in remote debugging (which really came into it's own in VS2005), treatment of dump files and so on, it's really production quality stuff.

Of course, if you're targetting *nix, then that's another matter.

XCode (on OS X) is very good too, but I'd still recomend VS if you don't care about platform.

As for *nix GUI's, Qt based stuff can look really good.
I intentionally left the kernel comparisons away. :-P Give Windows a break! haha

I said Windows beats UI-wise because I have the same opinion as Disch about the UI's in Linux. This is why I mentioned it.

And yes, I know Windows is behind. A lot of the new Windows features come from Linux. Even the graphics. For example, you can find all major Windows Vista icons in the FuturoSoft icon collections.
I personally think for the os migrants linux mint is good ..
LOL. Flame wars.

You lot keep making backwards statements.

Windows does some things better than Linux.
Linux does some things better than Windows.

All the "Z is better" stuff is just opinion.

Want to learn something about UI design?
User Interface Design For Programmers
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/uibook/fog0000000249.html

Guess who spends significant amounts of money on UI design? (Microsoft)

Guess how many people care that the kernel does X with Y instead of Z.


I program in both Windows and *nix with ease.
Neither is "better" than the other.
You just need to understand the differences between the two.


Of course, I'm sure everyone has seen this:
http://www.1000topics.com/shaving-with-a-bowling-pin/
( http://www.heyrick.co.uk/assembler/funnies.html )
:->
LOL. Flame wars.

This isn't a flame war. It's a heated disagreement.

Windows does some things better than Linux.

NO!
... actually, OK, windows is easy to use, it has a massive user base and it does what is required of it, regardless of how well it does it. I'll give it that.
Linux does some things better than Windows.

The only thing I can think of that windows does better is be easy to use.

Guess who spends significant amounts of money on UI design?

Funny, then, that I still succeed at getting angry at the layout of just about every one of their programs because I find them illogical... The start menu is fine... except that if you make a shortcut to a program, and then delete the program, when you right-click it to try and delete the shortcut (this can be anywhere), one of two things will happen:
1. It will crash the whole explorer.exe program, and the entire GUI will hang untill you kill it and then restart the explorer program
2. See above

Guess how many people care that the kernel does X with Y instead of Z.

Geeks like you and me do (or should). Normal people should too. For example, the windows scheduler is terrible. I don't know which (I don't know enough about the subject to figure it out), but it either gives programs too long to execute before it switches, or not long enough. Probably the latter because that would result in context-switching more often, which is supposedly a real expensive thing to do. Either way, it's horrible. At school, you have to wait about five minutes (after logging in) for the machine to actually respond to anything you do.

Most people attribute that to the computer, but it's not. It's a P4 with 1 GiB RAM... the machine is fine, it's the OS.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.

This is an adaptation of something Arthur C. Clarke said, isn't it?

Brian Kernighan wrote:
"The most effective debugging tool is still careful thought, coupled with judiciously placed print statements."

The truth! Then again, assert() is pretty useful too.
1. It will crash the whole explorer.exe program, and the entire GUI will hang until you kill it and then restart the explorer program


Now chrisname, you did show your colors there. It is a complete exaggeration on your part and 99.999999% false. It may have happened once to you and that's it. I have used Windows for many years and I haven't had this problem once. You over did it. Way past the line my friend. :-P
Now chrisname, you did show your colors there.

Show my 'true colours'? This isn't a spy movie, don't be stupid.

It is a complete exaggeration on your part and 99.999999% false. It may have happened once to you and that's it.

Actually, it happens every time I try to delete a shortcut to a program I don't have any more. Every. Single. Time. Without fail.

I have used Windows for many years and I haven't had this problem once.

Well, that's great for you. I've used windows for at least ten years, I've used 95, 98, 2000, XP, Vista and 7, and I don't like any of them. I've still got a hard disk with ME on it actually.

Anyway, while I was somewhat content using XP, vista really pushed me over the bar. I can't stand using it. Haven't you noticed that the biggest difference between releases of windows is the GUI? Wasn't windows 3.1 just DOS with a GUI and (maybe) multitasking support?

Both of us see what we expect to see. When you used Linux, you expected to see hard to use GUIs and badly designed software written by incompetent idiots living in their paren't basement, so that's what you saw. On the other hand, I've already used windows, and in fact, I used it first. So I can compare them more evenly. But you (judging by what you've said) never even gave *nix a chance.

Also,
I have used Windows for many years

explains everything.

You over did it. Way past the line my friend

No. No I didn't. I complained about something that has irked me several times and doesn't make the slightest sense. That's not past the line. Past the line would be saying that everything in windows is crap, and not worth using, and it's the sole fault of the people who run microsoft (not the programmers, I can empathise with them).

Oh wait. What I just said would be "over the line" is true. Oh well.

@Duoas,
now I guess you could call this a flamewar...
LOL!!!! Ladies and Gentlemen: I present you a fanboy. Note how I just made a simple remark and see the kind of response I get. I even got called a stupid.

Go play with your Linux box, fanboy chirsname. Let the rational discussion to people who can control their temper.

If you read earlier posts, you'll see that I praised Linux's kernel and Compiz, and I acknowledge that MS copies features from Linux. Or were you too enraged to notice?

And to enrich your knowledge: The English language has something called metaphors. "showing the colors" was intended in a metaphoric context. I know it is not a spy movie (and by the way, applies to politics too, you close-minded F A N B O Y). Here, enjoy your reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor.

Oh, and reinstall your Windows box as it is clearly broken.
Last edited on
Pages: 1234