Windows versus Linux fragmentation

Oh please. The difference is that if it works in Windows 7 it will work on all 100 version of Windows 7. In all likelihood it will also work on Vista and Windows XP.

Not Linux thought...where you need to get a version for your flavour or worst, need to compile it yourself.

As for the mobile space, yes, that is a mess...
 
The only people this affects is people who buy new PC's and laptops, and from what I've seen, you don't really choose the version. If you do, it's an additional cost. The other affected users are organisations and the they will get only get professional or Enterprise really, depending on the size of the company.

Linux is a whole other ball game, as straatkat mentioned.
 
I agree with straatkat, bit of a silly article, windows is no-where near as "fragmented" as linux, they have simply created a few different OS's with subtle changes to suit certain groups of users but essentailly its all the same thing, linux on the other hand is a mis-mash of things. Plus you cant compare the XP with Vista and 7, they are completely different products with backwards compatability, thats it, so including those versions as more fragments doesn't make sense.
 
Oh please, get a clue RPM. Applications that I write for Ultimate will work 100% for Enterprise and Home Premium. And Vista.

With Windows, there is one central authority defining new versions, so fragmentation is limited. Also, comparing Win Mobiel and Win desktop is like comparing Android and Ubuntu. Anyone that expects Ubuntu apps to work on Android, and vice versa, is a grade A idiot, as is anyone who expects Win Mobile apps to work on Win desktop.

What about KDE vs Gnome? Ubuntu vs Fedora? Hows that fragmentation for you?
 
Ancalagon said:
Oh please, get a clue RPM. Applications that I write for Ultimate will work 100% for Enterprise and Home Premium. And Vista.
Click to expand...
You have a point that I don't have a clue about this topic - but then again I did not write the article ;)
 
rpm said:
You have a point that I don't have a clue about this topic - but then again I did not write the article ;)
Click to expand...

Sorry! My bad, I thought you wrote most of the articles because you always post the link. I stand corrected. Whoever wrote it then, does not have a clue.
 
Got to agree with the other comments in this thread. Linux does have issues with compatibility between the various distros. It is so bad that dedicated pieces of software need to be created to facilitate transfer. Even then only for the major distros.

Windows may appear fragmented but it really isn't. Compatibility between the versions is pretty smooth as far as I can see. OK between XP and the VIsta/Windows7 generations was a little shaky but overall not bad.

Having said that I'll still stick with Linux thanks. Made the change a while back and have never been happier. Especially when I watch people around me fork out all that cash for an OS that uses close on 1GB of RAM just to run itself. What the heck does it do with all that RAM?!?
 
sillyness!

Long time ago in a galaxy far far away ruled by an iron fist tyrant called Linus, lived the Linux Distro race... because they need allot of space... there are many of them, and they are all unique...

Oh and yeah... really... a dozen windows distro's does not compare to the vastness of linux distro's. Silly article :)
 
Last edited:
Well, we all know the article is a bit silly, so lets use this thread for something more constructive.

Linux vs Windows, Round 4578415248646521, FIGHT!
 
I'm wondering now whether this is a fair comparison, Linux vs Windows that is, especially comparing the entire Linux family to just Windows 7 and it's various flavours. A better comparison would probably be to compare all Windows distributions with all Linux distributions and I think we can all agree that even in that situation there are more Linux distributions and flavours than Windows by quite a margin.

What I do think we also need to take into account is that Windows is proprietary and Linux is free and OSS, which is probably the reason for Linux having so many distributions out there. The problem now lies in the fact that Linux distributions are made by different people all over the place, so again I think that comparing Linux to Windows is unfair.

You need to consider one company that makes (an) operating system(s) and compare what they have vs what Microsoft has. So for this article, I think the writer was getting at Google, with Chrome and Android, vs Microsoft, with Windows desktop and mobile and which one is more "fragmented". (at least that's what I get from his last few sentences...)

Google has Android for cellphones and soon will have ChromeOS for desktops. Android by itself has versions 1.0 to 2.2 but the recent pie chart suggests that Android users are now using:
  1. 1.1
  2. 1.5
  3. 1.6
  4. 2.0/2.0.1
  5. 2.1
So 5 versions in total, not counting the imminent release of 2.2.

ChromeOS is yet to be released, so we are left to speculate. I don't see this having Home, Professional, Ultimate etc. type versions for it. Lets say it gets on to tablets, then it might have two slightly different versions.

This means that between mobile and desktop Google will have something in the line of 7 versions total whereas Microsoft has quite a few more. Is this a fair comparison? I don't know anymore. What I do see here is that everyone is fragmented to some degree and people are trying to point out that others are worse than them (w.r.t. fragmentation) on some or other level, so therefore they aren't fragmented. So I'll agree with the authors last point:
Which is why Steve Ballmer's recent criticism of Google's two-OS strategy is a little like the pot calling the kettle black.
Click to expand...
 
porchrat said:
Got to agree with the other comments in this thread. Linux does have issues with compatibility between the various distros. It is so bad that dedicated pieces of software need to be created to facilitate transfer. Even then only for the major distros.

Windows may appear fragmented but it really isn't. Compatibility between the versions is pretty smooth as far as I can see. OK between XP and the VIsta/Windows7 generations was a little shaky but overall not bad.

Having said that I'll still stick with Linux thanks. Made the change a while back and have never been happier. Especially when I watch people around me fork out all that cash for an OS that uses close on 1GB of RAM just to run itself. What the heck does it do with all that RAM?!?
Click to expand...


And with good reason. Windows 7 and Vista uses newer underlying tech that brings with them additional advances. It is called progress. I bet Microsoft is going to lambasted when people wake up to the fact that IE9 will be Vista and later, just as .Net4 is Vista and later. I wonder how many Linux programs run on 10 year old distro's?

As for Porchrat, I love Windows. I surf the net, play games, listen to songs and watch a show, I could use Linux for some of it, but not all of it...and that my point, pick the OS that works for you. I am happy you use Linux and loving it. As for the gigs of RAM at my Windows disposal, I don't care, neither does anyone else. There is not another Operating system out there that can match it for it sheer versatility out of the box, and with that versatility comes overhead, something that I don't mind, considering that it runs everything that I through at it, and them some.

As for the other myths about Windows, a good free Firewall and free Anti virus is all you need. Luckily you can pick and choose. And for the record, I think all computers should have those...no matter what OS.
 
The thing is that I dont think Win7 Home Premium and Win7 Ultimate, etc, differ enough for it be called fragmentation. Apps written for one will work on the other with no modifications. The platform is the same, but the product is different, and thats only for marketing purposes. It really isnt fragmentation at all.

Valid examples of fragmentation are things like the difference between XP and 7. However, I consider this less valid since XP is no longer sold or supported by MS. Application developers still likely need to worry about it, but its a legacy issue. Same with Ubuntu 6.04 vs Ubuntu 10.04.

As for mobile vs desktop operating systems, I think it makes perfect sense for fragmentation to exist here. Input devices, screen size, performance, and battery life play huge roles in application development differences between mobile and desktop, so it makes perfect sense to have different platforms to account for that.

Is the author of the article on these boards? Would be interested in why considers Win7 fragmented - specifically what third party applications would run on Win7 Home Premium but not on Ultimate.
 
HawkiesZA said:
I'm wondering now whether this is a fair comparison, Linux vs Windows that is, especially comparing the entire Linux family to just Windows 7 and it's various flavours. A better comparison would probably be to compare all Windows distributions with all Linux distributions and I think we can all agree that even in that situation there are more Linux distributions and flavours than Windows by quite a margin.

What I do think we also need to take into account is that Windows is proprietary and Linux is free and OSS, which is probably the reason for Linux having so many distributions out there. The problem now lies in the fact that Linux distributions are made by different people all over the place, so again I think that comparing Linux to Windows is unfair.

You need to consider one company that makes (an) operating system(s) and compare what they have vs what Microsoft has. So for this article, I think the writer was getting at Google, with Chrome and Android, vs Microsoft, with Windows desktop and mobile and which one is more "fragmented". (at least that's what I get from his last few sentences...)

Google has Android for cellphones and soon will have ChromeOS for desktops. Android by itself has versions 1.0 to 2.2 but the recent pie chart suggests that Android users are now using:
  1. 1.1
  2. 1.5
  3. 1.6
  4. 2.0/2.0.1
  5. 2.1
So 5 versions in total, not counting the imminent release of 2.2.

ChromeOS is yet to be released, so we are left to speculate. I don't see this having Home, Professional, Ultimate etc. type versions for it. Lets say it gets on to tablets, then it might have two slightly different versions.

This means that between mobile and desktop Google will have something in the line of 7 versions total whereas Microsoft has quite a few more. Is this a fair comparison? I don't know anymore. What I do see here is that everyone is fragmented to some degree and people are trying to point out that others are worse than them (w.r.t. fragmentation) on some or other level, so therefore they aren't fragmented. So I'll agree with the authors last point:
Click to expand...

You have a valid point. It is especially confusing for mobile guys. I remember John Carmack stating that they had to do 150 versions of the game to work on cellphones. Since Iphone came along he reckon that the market will be big enough so that you can just build for that. How quickly that has change, there is now 4 versions of that tech available, put Andriod in the mix and it is a nightmare very quickly.

I always found that the biggest problem with Linux is not the amount of distros, it is the lack of direction. The one sane thing they did was to lock down the Kernel. And it shows. A lot of the smaller distros disappeared and a couple bigger once have emerged since. They can do them self a lot of favour by at least by getting a unified installer packaged and distribution channel. I still believe there is room for all of them, but it would make the OS at least more friendlier and more approachable for the average person.
 
CorneN said:
Well, we all know the article is a bit silly, so lets use this thread for something more constructive.

Linux vs Windows, Round 4578415248646521, FIGHT!
Click to expand...

There's are two points to this article "users will be confused and unsure of which to pick." Check, that is me. So that bit is relevant in calling it fragmented.

The other point about google / Steve Ballmer = [the framentation of Linux and google ] is rather unrelated to the first point [which Windows?] which is why it is silly.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X