The very crucial difference is that the open source world (Linux, GNU, et. al.) is entirely open so the software can be improved/fixed by anyone competent enough. In Windows, you're at the mercy of a very greedy vendor. Nobody is claiming open source to be bug free. No software is bug free. However, in general, open source seems to stable out much faster and remain stable much longer.

I run both Windows and Linux. I run the former mostly for gaming, but while I'm in a gaming mood (i.e., feel like gaming every night) I run it continuously for months at a time to spare myself the trouble of rebooting. I also run Windows at j0rb as a primary development environment since j0rb insists on investing in Microsoft technologies (if there isn't an allegedly easy button then they don't even understand why I'd be bringing it up). I have plenty of experience running both and overall Linux gives me a much better experience. It isn't Windows though. It isn't designed for complete n00bs NOR Windows users to get around. It's a completely different system and often the CLI is much more complete and more mature than the GUI. That makes complete sense considering how much more complicated GUI programming is; it's a huge waste of effort to develop that interface when the command-line is efficient, clean, and productive. It's a huge waste of resources to make a commonly used UI "idiot-proof" when most users will use it so often that they'll learn memorize it anyway. The pictures drawn on the screen are a lie; underneath the system is still command-line driven.

Long story short, GNU/Linux is easily the better OS, but it does require you to learn to use it. Most people are just lazy: they know Windows and they expect everything to work like Windows and refuse to learn something different, even if it might be better. The things that most people do though don't require any command line access 99% of the time in popular Linux distros (e.g., Fedora or Ubuntu). It's only when you begin to require certain exceptional behavior that you begin to have a need for the command line, but if you require exceptional behavior in Windows then you're fucked anyway. Fuck the CLI because Windows won't bend without tedious binary hacking.

There are still problems. Installing things like Flash could be easier, but that's not the fault of open source; that's the fault of proprietary vendors (e.g., Adobe), which are essentially the same as Microsoft. I think things have improved greatly though. I can't remember if Adobe has an RPM repository for Flash yet, but I know that it's certainly making some effort to make Linux support. So basically the fight is being won. You can see that companies provide support only for Windows when that's what they need to do. If people move over to Linux then they will be forced to provide support for Linux and if a majority of people happen to switch then a majority of resources will go into Linux development on all fronts.

Microsoft effectively got rich and powerful through unethical business practices. They didn't earn their success. They "raped" the planet. In the past few years their ability to tie the planet down though has been slipping and it's become obvious that they can't continue their monopoly anymore. They are being forced to adapt to a more open and free market and so far it doesn't look like they have the ability to cope. It will be interesting to see what they can come up with to stay afloat.

I didn't say they were. As for packaging systems, I like Gentoo's just because I'm used to it. Sure, it involves a lot of compiling, but that's the price you pay for the functionality and flexibility of it. It's not something that I would however attribute to being a fault of the package manager.

Personally, my favorite package management system aside from that is apt. And I love aptitude. It provides a very nice, functional UI to Debian's apt system. I'd certainly like to see such a front-end for portage or perhaps other distro's systems, for instance; However, I tend to find all others except aptitude somewhat lacking.

Here's another example of Windows requiring a reinstall, straight from MS.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9217953/Rootkit_infection_requires_Windows_reinstall_says_Microsoft

I haven't gotten a CD with windows since the previous millenium. It's always on a space-wasting hidden partition, and installs all the shovelware along with Windows.

But allegro.cc wasn't even in existence when Linux was invented! OTOH, neither was 32 bit Windows...

That guy that sells bootleg CD's on the corner is more popular than Best Buy too. Not a fair comparison? Tell me of some technology that Microsoft has, and I'll tell you where they got it. They sure didn't invent it. Well, maybe Clippy...

So... you can't give me an example of something useful that Microsoft invented?

I didn't say they didn't have useful things, I'm just saying they either bought them or stole them instead of inventing them. The things they bought were leveraged from the original theft of DOS.

I'd rather not deal with a company who uses their extortionate profits to hire an army of lawyers to keep them out of jail, and calls everyone else a thief.

That's besides the point; non sequitur.

Their primary product works and is a very powerful platform that has provided a sound foundation for countless opportunities to people and companies all around the globe. It's the most popular and successful end-user operating system to date and a few nerdy boys on a.cc aren't going to phase anything at all.

I think he already does that

I haven't the time to research, and I don't really have the motivation. But just at the number of patent disputes that are on-going. Just in the IT world there's Microsoft, Apple, Nokia, motorola....

MFC. It's useful for showing how not to design a library.