Beautiful Looking Linux Desktop

Vista vs. Leopard vs. Linux: Different Strokes for Different Folks

The great OS debate has been going on for a long time, and those on both sides often display an almost religious fervor when it comes to defending their operating system choices. It's interesting - and a little amusing - to see how emotional some people get about it. I have my own preference, which is obvious to anyone who takes a look at the names of the newsletters I edit and the books I've written, but I certainly don't get offended (as some people seem to) because someone else chooses to use a different OS.We live in a time and place where "tolerance" is supposed to reign supreme, but sometimes I think people are becoming more intolerant of differences instead of the other way around. For most of my life, I didn't know or care which of my friends belonged to which political party, and neither did they. Now it seems that many people won't even associate with others who are on the "wrong" side of the political aisle, much less call them friends. And it extends beyond politics.Dog lovers vs. cat lovers, Canon owners vs. Nikon owners, American vs. foreign car drivers, "middle class" vs. "rich," country folk vs. city slickers, and yes - Windows vs. Mac vs. Linux users: folks are becoming divided over the silliest things. I actually heard a Windows techie say once that he could never get serious about a certain girl he'd dated because she uses a Mac.The truth is: there is no perfect operating system, just there is no perfect political candidate or perfect place to live or perfect anything else. We each make choices that we believe are best for us. Those who refuse to concede that different choices might be best for others are destined to lead very self- restricted lives. Recently a friend of my son offered an analogy over dinner that I liked and later expanded upon. My version goes like this: Using a Mac is like living in a downtown penthouse. You have everything done for you and it all looks very slick, but you pay a high price. You have a doorman to pamper you and somebody else takes care of the maintenance, but you can't make a lot of changes to the property.Using Windows is like living in the suburbs. You get more square footage for your dollar but you have to mow your own lawn and when something goes wrong, you have to fix it yourself or pay someone extra to do it. You can make changes to your property but you might have to deal with deed restrictions or city ordinances or homeowner association rules.Using Linux is like living out in the country. Compared to the other options, property is dirt cheap and you can do whatever you want to it without having to follow codes and get inspections. But you'll probably have to do a lot more of the work yourself and you need a lot of building expertise or else you may get yourself into big trouble and find your house falling down all around you because you didn't do it correctly.The point is: for some people, city living is the only way to go and others would be miserable in the urban environment. Some love the rugged rural lifestyle and others prefer the 'burbs. None of the three choices is "right" or "wrong" in general; different choices are right for different people. And it's the same way with computer operating systems.When you really think about it, the three top OS choices have more in common than they ever have before. The interfaces are now similar; all use keyboards and pointing devices (and in some cases microphones) to input data and display the output through monitors, printers and speakers. All use clickable icons and menus. Choosing between them is more like choosing between a Ford, Toyota and Volkswagon than choosing between a bicycle, car and airplane. If you can drive one, you can (with a little study and practice) operate the others.So what are the real differences between Microsoft's latest operating system (Vista), Apple's newest big cat (Leopard) and one of the currently most popular Linux distros (Ubuntu)? Most of the comparison articles you'll find on the web are written by biased authors who have a clear preference for one over the others. Those that appear to be objective usually end up with the same conclusion: Each OS has strengths and each has weaknesses. It all depends on how you want to use your computer.Here's a feature chart that compares Vista and Leopard, comparing some of the top "out of the box" features. The main thing it proves is that both of these operating systems have some great features. Need tablet/touchscreen features? Vista is the clear choice. Want virtual desktops (without third party software)? Here, kitty, kitty. Longing to use your computer as a home entertainment hub to record TV programs, stream HDTV and so forth? Media Center takes the cake. Concentrating on photo display and editing? iPhoto wins over Windows Photo Gallery. And so on. http://www.vistanews.com/080612-Vista-vs-Leopard. How about Linux? Once upon a time, only true techies dared to go there. Many PC users who tried installing it on their desktops ran screaming back to Windows, traumatized by the need to write their own drivers, compile kernels and otherwise become overnight IT pros. But new distributions of Linux have greatly increased the user-friendliness of the OS. The desktop looks more Windows-like and navigation is more intuitive. And of course, the price is right (you just can't beat free). This article compares Vista and Ubuntu Linux: http://www.vistanews.com/080612-Vista-vs-Ubuntu Tell us what you think. Do most of the people you know take their operating system choice way too seriously? Can you still be friends with someone who uses a different OS? Might you consider using more than one operating system, either in a multi-boot configuration or in different computers, for different purposes? Do you think there's really less difference between the alternative operating systems than the fanboys would have you think? Let us know your opinions and experiences at