Hmm, unless you are a gamer and need Windows for that, I've used Linux in business, at home, and here in my office now for many years. There have been many programs I've only needed to use a few times, and if I was on Windows, I would never have access to such programs without shelling out some big bucks to get them.
For my writing, I prefer LibreOffice Writer over msWord any day of the week. Besides being more logical things just work on it.
In some cases, a Free Linux program may not be as robust as a thousand dollar Windows program, but when you only need to use it a couple of times or for a month or two, at least Linux comes to the rescue, especially if you can't afford the high cost of using Windows programs.
As far as Apps go, everyplace you go for shopping or much of any other purpose wants you download their App. Heck, even the TV weathermen want you to download their weather App for their channel. And now you see QR codes all over the place you can scan with your phone to get to their website to download an App there too.
If you ask me, the world has gone literally crazy with dumping stuff on people they don't need or want.
We already know with Apple and Mickey$oft is ALWAYS all about the MONEY they can screw people out of.
Well some people are waking up to their game of control and conquer, and make them pay, and they are fed up with it.
FLoC
Re: FLoC
The common thread in your arguments in favor of Linux is the cost. Your personal preferences for one word processor over another is just that: personal. It has nothing to do with the operating system's overall performance. Libre Office, by the way, works perfectly well on a Windows computer; I've been doing it for decades. If you think about it Micorsoft has upgraded their operating system several times since ... say ... Windows XP. Each and every upgrade saw a number of disgruntled users swear off using anything out of Redmond. It's more an objection to change per se than it is a reasoned argument about the pros and cons of the new way to do things. If Linux was such a great replacement for Windows, by now, at the Windows 11 stage, 95% of the PC users would have Linux instead of Windows on their machines. Needless to say, they don't. It's quite the opposite in fact.
I recognize the legitimacy of a computer user needing to feel comfortable with the hardware and software they must use every day to be productive. You can't do your best unless you have tools that are easy for you to work with. I only have my many decades of experience with computers and operating systems to rely on, and I concede you have way more experience with Linux than I do, but I find no compelling difference between Windows and Linux that would cause me to abandon either one. I prefer Windows because in my experience it has proven more reliable and easier to use. Plus, and this is significant, I can afford the license fee and the cost of any specialized software.
And, just for what it's worth, many years ago I bought my wife a Windows laptop. I don't think they had store bought Linux laptops back in those days. She was working at the time and used it both at home and at work. Then she retired. Unfortunately, the laptop decided to retire as well. This all happened at a time when I was in the process of upgrading my own computers and happened to have a spare laptop without an operating system. I installed Linux (Ubuntu I would guess) on the laptop and showed her how to use it until we could get her a replacement. To be honest I was hoping she would like Linux well enough to keep that laptop and we would not have to get her another Windows computer. She used it for several months and did make an effort to fall in love with it. But, in the end there were some things she didn't like and asked me if we could go back to Windows. We did. So there you have it. Not everybody feels comfortable with Linux. Even some technically disinterested parties don't like it.
I recognize the legitimacy of a computer user needing to feel comfortable with the hardware and software they must use every day to be productive. You can't do your best unless you have tools that are easy for you to work with. I only have my many decades of experience with computers and operating systems to rely on, and I concede you have way more experience with Linux than I do, but I find no compelling difference between Windows and Linux that would cause me to abandon either one. I prefer Windows because in my experience it has proven more reliable and easier to use. Plus, and this is significant, I can afford the license fee and the cost of any specialized software.
And, just for what it's worth, many years ago I bought my wife a Windows laptop. I don't think they had store bought Linux laptops back in those days. She was working at the time and used it both at home and at work. Then she retired. Unfortunately, the laptop decided to retire as well. This all happened at a time when I was in the process of upgrading my own computers and happened to have a spare laptop without an operating system. I installed Linux (Ubuntu I would guess) on the laptop and showed her how to use it until we could get her a replacement. To be honest I was hoping she would like Linux well enough to keep that laptop and we would not have to get her another Windows computer. She used it for several months and did make an effort to fall in love with it. But, in the end there were some things she didn't like and asked me if we could go back to Windows. We did. So there you have it. Not everybody feels comfortable with Linux. Even some technically disinterested parties don't like it.
Re: FLoC
LibreOffice Writer is FAR BETTER than msWORD, always has been and always will be.
Even back when I was still running Windows, before I ever started running Linux, because of the problems with msWord, I began using OpenOffice Writer in order to get my work done, at the time these were tri-fold pamphlets.
msWord sets its margins based on what printer you have installed, each time you opened a page, even one that you had previously formatted for the printing companies printers.
Plus every time you made an adjustment to a page, all the images would bounce around to wherever they wanted to hop to.
Using msWord was actually a major nightmare, and it has not improved much over the years.
I also said msWord is ILLOGICAL, commands make no sense where they are placed.
In OpenOffice Writer or LibreOffice Writer, if you want to Format a Page, you look under Formatting Operations.
On msWord, if you want to Format a Page, you can spend hours trying to figure out where they HID the command for Page Format. The IDIOTS who designed msWord put Page Format under File System Operations. That is totally NONSENSE, what on earth does Formatting a Page have to do with System File Operations? Absolutely NOTHING! Totally ILLOGICAL!
NO AGAIN! Most people bought whatever came installed on the computer they were buying. And since ms was first they pretty much garnered the market. People got used to their idiosyncrasies over the years, and simply stuck with what they knew how to use. And MOST people who use Windows could not install Windows on a computer, and many don't know what to do if they are not spoon fed the instructions on how to do something simple. A good percentage of people, like me for example who got their start with Apple computers, and later MAC computers, we could do things on a MAC computer you couldn't even dream of doing on a Windows PC. Windows didn't catch up to MAC's capabilities for many years.
When people buy Schmartz-Fonz, they buy whatever OS is already installed on the Schmartz-Fone they bought. And nearly ALL of those are based on the Linux kernel and a Linux Distro.
The XML format for printers was widely used in the printing industry. So much so XML became an industry standard.
Then along comes ms and decided to BUTCHER the XML standard, swapping out their own symbols and characters for unrecognizable to printers symbols and characters, and called it DOCX. Talk about Grand Theft and a major accident in the making.
You could always tell when someone used DOCX to cut and paste something to nearly any social media website, because DOCX claims it XML and so that is how it is parsed. This is why you saw so many things in posts that had a black diamond with a white question mark in the middle. It took years to rewrite display programs to check to see if the XML version being presented was true XML or the BUTCHERED DOCX version.
For over five years, book and magazine publishers REFUSED to accept any submitted copy that used DOCX. It was just too costly for them to go through a manuscript and fix all the errors cause by ms. But now that correcting programs are available, most do now accept in that god awful BUTCHERED format.
What RIGHT did ms have to BUTCHER an industry standard? But sadly, people didn't care, which was obvious by the number of people who let the default DOCX take over their computing system.
If Windows is so great, why do you think the entire world runs on Linux, except on the home desktop market.
Small offices still use Windows, but they are usually backed up by a Linux or Unix mainframe.
If you consider the ENTIRE Computing Industry and the Millions of Computers out there, Windows has only a very tiny niche market and nothing more. All of the top 500 supercomputers run Linux, nearly all server farms run Linux, most major business run Linux, but may have Windows workstations on the floor to save dollars on retraining employees. Literally, everything you own from your car to your coffee pot runs on Linux.
People took the time to learn the differences after the jump from Windows XP to 7, 8, 10, and now 11. Many gripe about it too. But even so, you don't see many of them looking into Linux Distro's, because when it comes to computing, they really are not that bright, not bright at all in most cases.
For many who do nothing but surf the web, or write a letter to someone, they would never know if they were on a Windows or Linux computer. And most don't even know the servers they are connecting to are usually Linux.
I for one happened to love my Windows XP computers. But when they hit us with the ultimate spyware OS called Vista, I said goodbye to Windows, and Hello to Linux! Best move I ever made too.
And FWIW: I don't know much more about Linux than your average user knows about their Windows computer.
You are miles ahead of me in how Linux Distro's work, and how the machines work as well.
But I know what works for me, and works right. Windows after XP was not that cup o tea.
Linux Mint is the most user friendly of all Linux Distro's out there. You don't need to know anything in order to use it. Upgrades are the simple press of the blue shield when it shows there is an upgrade or update. At least it doesn't shove an upgrade down your throat when you are busy like Windows does.
I'll bet your wife has a Schmartz-Fone and has learned quite well how to use the Linux Distro on it!
Even back when I was still running Windows, before I ever started running Linux, because of the problems with msWord, I began using OpenOffice Writer in order to get my work done, at the time these were tri-fold pamphlets.
msWord sets its margins based on what printer you have installed, each time you opened a page, even one that you had previously formatted for the printing companies printers.
Plus every time you made an adjustment to a page, all the images would bounce around to wherever they wanted to hop to.
Using msWord was actually a major nightmare, and it has not improved much over the years.
I also said msWord is ILLOGICAL, commands make no sense where they are placed.
In OpenOffice Writer or LibreOffice Writer, if you want to Format a Page, you look under Formatting Operations.
On msWord, if you want to Format a Page, you can spend hours trying to figure out where they HID the command for Page Format. The IDIOTS who designed msWord put Page Format under File System Operations. That is totally NONSENSE, what on earth does Formatting a Page have to do with System File Operations? Absolutely NOTHING! Totally ILLOGICAL!
NO AGAIN! Most people bought whatever came installed on the computer they were buying. And since ms was first they pretty much garnered the market. People got used to their idiosyncrasies over the years, and simply stuck with what they knew how to use. And MOST people who use Windows could not install Windows on a computer, and many don't know what to do if they are not spoon fed the instructions on how to do something simple. A good percentage of people, like me for example who got their start with Apple computers, and later MAC computers, we could do things on a MAC computer you couldn't even dream of doing on a Windows PC. Windows didn't catch up to MAC's capabilities for many years.
When people buy Schmartz-Fonz, they buy whatever OS is already installed on the Schmartz-Fone they bought. And nearly ALL of those are based on the Linux kernel and a Linux Distro.
The XML format for printers was widely used in the printing industry. So much so XML became an industry standard.
Then along comes ms and decided to BUTCHER the XML standard, swapping out their own symbols and characters for unrecognizable to printers symbols and characters, and called it DOCX. Talk about Grand Theft and a major accident in the making.
You could always tell when someone used DOCX to cut and paste something to nearly any social media website, because DOCX claims it XML and so that is how it is parsed. This is why you saw so many things in posts that had a black diamond with a white question mark in the middle. It took years to rewrite display programs to check to see if the XML version being presented was true XML or the BUTCHERED DOCX version.
For over five years, book and magazine publishers REFUSED to accept any submitted copy that used DOCX. It was just too costly for them to go through a manuscript and fix all the errors cause by ms. But now that correcting programs are available, most do now accept in that god awful BUTCHERED format.
What RIGHT did ms have to BUTCHER an industry standard? But sadly, people didn't care, which was obvious by the number of people who let the default DOCX take over their computing system.
If Windows is so great, why do you think the entire world runs on Linux, except on the home desktop market.
Small offices still use Windows, but they are usually backed up by a Linux or Unix mainframe.
If you consider the ENTIRE Computing Industry and the Millions of Computers out there, Windows has only a very tiny niche market and nothing more. All of the top 500 supercomputers run Linux, nearly all server farms run Linux, most major business run Linux, but may have Windows workstations on the floor to save dollars on retraining employees. Literally, everything you own from your car to your coffee pot runs on Linux.
People took the time to learn the differences after the jump from Windows XP to 7, 8, 10, and now 11. Many gripe about it too. But even so, you don't see many of them looking into Linux Distro's, because when it comes to computing, they really are not that bright, not bright at all in most cases.
For many who do nothing but surf the web, or write a letter to someone, they would never know if they were on a Windows or Linux computer. And most don't even know the servers they are connecting to are usually Linux.
I for one happened to love my Windows XP computers. But when they hit us with the ultimate spyware OS called Vista, I said goodbye to Windows, and Hello to Linux! Best move I ever made too.
And FWIW: I don't know much more about Linux than your average user knows about their Windows computer.
You are miles ahead of me in how Linux Distro's work, and how the machines work as well.
But I know what works for me, and works right. Windows after XP was not that cup o tea.
Linux Mint is the most user friendly of all Linux Distro's out there. You don't need to know anything in order to use it. Upgrades are the simple press of the blue shield when it shows there is an upgrade or update. At least it doesn't shove an upgrade down your throat when you are busy like Windows does.
I'll bet your wife has a Schmartz-Fone and has learned quite well how to use the Linux Distro on it!
Re: FLoC
I happened to got used to the way M$ did things up to Office 2000. Then they redesigned their entire menu tree, and it took several tries to find the way to handle things with the new UI. Drawing stuff in M$Word became a nightmare. Both Libre Office and Open Office are more or less stable, and let us do things in a stable way. I remember having to teach myself M$ Publisher just to do certain kinds of publications that cannot be formatted easily in M$Word, such as presentation cards and corporate ID's. Then they redesigned Publisher and now it only makes me angry. There are a couple of projects that I'm getting into due to the excess free time caused by the pandemic. Will make them under Libre Office and will see how they evolve.
Re: FLoC
Calling Android and iOS Linux is simply insane logic. But then, we had this discussion more than a few times. Neither one of us can contribute anything new to the Linux vs Windows argument. Clearly it's a matter of personal preference and not logical conclusions. Don't misinterpret my POV. I love the debate and the opinions that surface out of our discussions. That is the reason this website exists after all. I am very interested in knowing the opposing view on any topic. That's the only way I can confirm I'm making the right choices. Right for me anyway.
Last edited by yogi on 05 Oct 2021, 18:26, edited 1 time in total.
Re: FLoC
Nothing insane about how every Distro ever developed that uses the Linux Kernel is referred to as Linux.
I didn't start that trend either.
By the same token, why do you guys call every drastically different version of the OS that runs on the NT Kernel, Windows.
Windows 3.0 and 3.11 is nothing like Windows XP, and Windows Vista was nothing like XP, and none of the rest are even similar to XP. But you still call all those different Distro's using the NT Kernel WINDOWS.
So, if the Linux community wants to call everything that runs on a Linux Kernel, Linux collectively. What's the difference?
Android is just another Distro' using the Linux Kernel, so yes it can rightfully be called Linux, based on usage history of the term.
Lot's of people love their Windows computers, despite all the cost and nonsense programming therein.
I prefer clean and simple GNU/Linux Distro's myself. To each his own!
But I doubt if you can come up with any logical reason why a Page Format operation is placed Under File System operations in msWord. It doesn't even make sense to put it there, not one lick of sense!
I didn't start that trend either.
By the same token, why do you guys call every drastically different version of the OS that runs on the NT Kernel, Windows.
Windows 3.0 and 3.11 is nothing like Windows XP, and Windows Vista was nothing like XP, and none of the rest are even similar to XP. But you still call all those different Distro's using the NT Kernel WINDOWS.
So, if the Linux community wants to call everything that runs on a Linux Kernel, Linux collectively. What's the difference?
Android is just another Distro' using the Linux Kernel, so yes it can rightfully be called Linux, based on usage history of the term.
Lot's of people love their Windows computers, despite all the cost and nonsense programming therein.
I prefer clean and simple GNU/Linux Distro's myself. To each his own!
But I doubt if you can come up with any logical reason why a Page Format operation is placed Under File System operations in msWord. It doesn't even make sense to put it there, not one lick of sense!
Re: FLoC
When we talked about this in the past, I've always insisted that there is some confusion going on in that point of view. The supposed ill logic underlying msWord has erroneously been used as an indictment against the operating system in which it runs. Word processor programs are not the basis for determining the quality of a computer operating system, such as Windows. If that were so, then using Open Office or Libre Office instead would redeem Microsoft's cash cow. My personal opinion is that you were trying to get Word to do something for which is was not designed and that is the root cause of many complaints you cited. A word processor is not a desktop publication program although they both overlap in those functions. Regardless, a critical review would best be applied to the application and not the operating system on which it is installed. Plus, whether its navigation menus are logical or not, I happen to agree MsWord offers no significant benefit over it's open source counterparts. But then I never tried to use either for graphic arts or business publications.But I doubt if you can come up with any logical reason why a Page Format operation is placed Under File System operations in msWord. It doesn't even make sense to put it there, not one lick of sense!
Shakespeare notwithstanding the evolution of the Linux kernel has taken a much different path than the evolution of what is today the NT kernel. There is one straight developmental line from Windows 1.0 all the way through to Windows 11. All the intervening versions have a logical and straight forward growth pattern. The kernel in your Debian distribution is not the same kernel used by Android and neither one of those closely resemble what Apple computer has for a kernel. Linus Torvalds's dream package is clearly visible in Debian and other GNU Linux variations, but that kernel is unrecognizable in any of the other mobile device operating systems. The idea for each may have started with the original Linux kernel but unlike Microsofts progression, the Linux kernels have taken various and diverse paths of growth. Having said all that, I concur that uninformed folks have a hard time differentiating between any of the popular kernels.Linux vs Windows wrote:A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"
Re: FLoC
BSD is actually not Linux at all. BSD uses a Monolithic Kernel developed from UNIX.
BSD is not based on GNU, and is in fact and entire OS in and of itself.
Free BSD uses a Linux subsystem so Linux programs will run on BSD.
Android - Up until 2019 Android ran a slightly modified Linux Kernel to handle touch screens and Schmartz-Fonz.
Android only used the current LTS Linux Kernel, but added patches to make their android-mainstream kernel.
Since 2019, every time a new Linux Kernel comes out, they simply merge their android-mainstream to it.
Even so, Android still requires and uses the Linux Kernel with their patches added to it.
The Windows NT Kernel has changed considerably over the years.
The original NT Kernel was developed in 1988. Their initial release after much development was up to version NT3.1 and released in 1993. Windows 2000 was still using NT5.0. Then with Windows 10 they jumped the NT version number up to version NT10 also. Many major changes were made to the NT Kernel in recent years.
Just like the BSD Kernel, and the Linux Kernel, Windows NT Kernel also much make changes to keep up with the times, and new features of the CPU's and other machine hardware. Each NT Kernel is designed for the version of Windows it is released with.
BSD is not based on GNU, and is in fact and entire OS in and of itself.
Free BSD uses a Linux subsystem so Linux programs will run on BSD.
Android - Up until 2019 Android ran a slightly modified Linux Kernel to handle touch screens and Schmartz-Fonz.
Android only used the current LTS Linux Kernel, but added patches to make their android-mainstream kernel.
Since 2019, every time a new Linux Kernel comes out, they simply merge their android-mainstream to it.
Even so, Android still requires and uses the Linux Kernel with their patches added to it.
The Windows NT Kernel has changed considerably over the years.
The original NT Kernel was developed in 1988. Their initial release after much development was up to version NT3.1 and released in 1993. Windows 2000 was still using NT5.0. Then with Windows 10 they jumped the NT version number up to version NT10 also. Many major changes were made to the NT Kernel in recent years.
Just like the BSD Kernel, and the Linux Kernel, Windows NT Kernel also much make changes to keep up with the times, and new features of the CPU's and other machine hardware. Each NT Kernel is designed for the version of Windows it is released with.
Re: FLoC
I can't disagree with any of your kernel comments. As the name implies the kernel is the heart of the system and the system evolves with technological and hardware changes. Unless you are a development engineer the kernel of an operating system is pretty much ignored. That's as it should be, but there are a few distros of Linux based OS's that suggest you rebuild, read that to mean recompile, the kernel each time an update is released. I believe I found that group of nerds lurking in the Fedora or Mageia forums one day. It seems that the Linux kernel is updated and modified every other week and I thank the gods of Linux-land for making the integration into the existing operating system fairly easy. I have always been suspicious, however, of the common practice of keeping copies of previous kernels on hand. I never in all my wild experiments had a reason to revert back so that I don't see the point. Maybe I'm spoiled by Windows. The only time I see any mention at all about the kernel is when the system crashes and displays a BSOD. Then they dump the whole core, and good luck from there. 
Speaking of Windows ... yesterday was the release date for Windows 11. The day before I was given a brand new copy of the current development version of Windows 11 for beta testing. They told me in no uncertain terms a few weeks ago that I might not qualify to keep using this development channel, but lo and behold they have not taken it away, yet. If Micorsoft continues to give me beta software I might have to reconsider my harsh feelings about them.
Speaking of Windows ... yesterday was the release date for Windows 11. The day before I was given a brand new copy of the current development version of Windows 11 for beta testing. They told me in no uncertain terms a few weeks ago that I might not qualify to keep using this development channel, but lo and behold they have not taken it away, yet. If Micorsoft continues to give me beta software I might have to reconsider my harsh feelings about them.
Last edited by yogi on 07 Oct 2021, 17:05, edited 1 time in total.
Re: FLoC
The only reason to update the Kernel is if you have hardware changes that require it.
Cutting Edge Distro's like Linux Mint 19.3 has a few upgrades every week, and a new Kernel about once a month. But you don't have to upgrade the Kernel, which is why it is a separate option.
Linux has LTS Kernels, such as Linux Kernel 5.10 that was released in December of 2020 and does not reach its end of life until December of 2026.
If you are using Linux Kernel 5.4, it does not reach its end of life until 2025.
These are the two currently used in the Debian Distro.
Now let's compare to Windows:
Windows 10, Kernel version NT-10 Version 1507 - Released July 2015 - End of Life May 2017. Not even two whole years!
Windows 10 Kernel version 1511 - Released November 2015 - End of Life October 2017. Again, not even two whole years!
Windows 10 Kernel version 1607 - Released July 2016 - End of Life April 2018. Again, not even two whole years!
Windows 10 Kernel version 1703 - Released April 2017 - End of Life October 2018. Wow, way shy of two years!
Windows 10 Kernel version 1709 - Released October 2017 - End of Life April 2019. Again way less than two years!
Windows 10 Kernel version 1803 - Released April 2018 - End of Life November 2019. Getting shorter and shorter!
I could keep going! All Linux LTS releases use Kernels with FIVE YEAR Lifespans.
And you are claiming Windows is longer, when in fact, they are much shorter, often less than only two years.
Normally, Linux users do not upgrade their system kernel unless they move to a new version of their Distro.
But as you can see, Windows has a new kernel quite often in the same version.
It auto-downloads into your computer. And I only listed less than half of the Windows 10 kernel updates.
Looks to me like Linux is the winner here on the number of required kernel upgrades.
Cutting Edge Distro's like Linux Mint 19.3 has a few upgrades every week, and a new Kernel about once a month. But you don't have to upgrade the Kernel, which is why it is a separate option.
Linux has LTS Kernels, such as Linux Kernel 5.10 that was released in December of 2020 and does not reach its end of life until December of 2026.
If you are using Linux Kernel 5.4, it does not reach its end of life until 2025.
These are the two currently used in the Debian Distro.
Now let's compare to Windows:
Windows 10, Kernel version NT-10 Version 1507 - Released July 2015 - End of Life May 2017. Not even two whole years!
Windows 10 Kernel version 1511 - Released November 2015 - End of Life October 2017. Again, not even two whole years!
Windows 10 Kernel version 1607 - Released July 2016 - End of Life April 2018. Again, not even two whole years!
Windows 10 Kernel version 1703 - Released April 2017 - End of Life October 2018. Wow, way shy of two years!
Windows 10 Kernel version 1709 - Released October 2017 - End of Life April 2019. Again way less than two years!
Windows 10 Kernel version 1803 - Released April 2018 - End of Life November 2019. Getting shorter and shorter!
I could keep going! All Linux LTS releases use Kernels with FIVE YEAR Lifespans.
And you are claiming Windows is longer, when in fact, they are much shorter, often less than only two years.
Normally, Linux users do not upgrade their system kernel unless they move to a new version of their Distro.
But as you can see, Windows has a new kernel quite often in the same version.
It auto-downloads into your computer. And I only listed less than half of the Windows 10 kernel updates.
Looks to me like Linux is the winner here on the number of required kernel upgrades.
Re: FLoC
Here is a line from my /boot directory in the latest version of Ubuntu:
Take note of that last number -37
That indicates the current kernel has gone through 37 updates since it's release. And, this is only Ubuntu. Other Linux kernel based operating systems most likely are using different versions of the kernel and certainly can be expected to be on some other revision number than 37. Each distro of Linux bastardizes the kernel to suit its own needs. It has absolutely nothing (or extremely little) to do with changes in hardware.
It looks like your list of Windows kernels is somewhat lacking. You might want to check this out if you need a good laugh: https://www.geoffchappell.com/studies/w ... /index.htm
My complaint is that I am faced with Linux kernel upgrades nearly every time I upgrade a specific OS. And, it's not just a single kernel they want me to deal with in Linux. It's all very transparent to the PC user of Windows. Servers and system admins of course would be more in need of kernel awareness.
Code: Select all
-rw------- 1 root root 14757248 Sep 20 10:35 vmlinuz-5.11.0-37-genericThat indicates the current kernel has gone through 37 updates since it's release. And, this is only Ubuntu. Other Linux kernel based operating systems most likely are using different versions of the kernel and certainly can be expected to be on some other revision number than 37. Each distro of Linux bastardizes the kernel to suit its own needs. It has absolutely nothing (or extremely little) to do with changes in hardware.
It looks like your list of Windows kernels is somewhat lacking. You might want to check this out if you need a good laugh: https://www.geoffchappell.com/studies/w ... /index.htm
My complaint is that I am faced with Linux kernel upgrades nearly every time I upgrade a specific OS. And, it's not just a single kernel they want me to deal with in Linux. It's all very transparent to the PC user of Windows. Servers and system admins of course would be more in need of kernel awareness.
Re: FLoC
No Yogi, that last number is merely the number of bug fixes, aka patches, that have been added since the last version update, but is not an indication of the actual number of patches that have been made. The number only increments when they include all the recent changes into a release.
The first number is the Major release number. The second number is the Minor Revision Number. The third number only tells how many times a minor change has been made but not a change necessary enough to be called a Revision.
While the Distro you are talking about is only up to Patch #37
In Comparison, WINDOWS 10 CVE2021 is already OVER 35,000 patches released. WOW! And that was back in July.
Source: https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/07/mic ... 1-edition/
Wow Again, I just took a look at that link you provided, and it appears their Kernel has more patches per release than Carters has pills, hi hi. Windows is constantly trying to block all the HOLES in the OS, hi hi.
The first number is the Major release number. The second number is the Minor Revision Number. The third number only tells how many times a minor change has been made but not a change necessary enough to be called a Revision.
While the Distro you are talking about is only up to Patch #37
In Comparison, WINDOWS 10 CVE2021 is already OVER 35,000 patches released. WOW! And that was back in July.
Source: https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/07/mic ... 1-edition/
Wow Again, I just took a look at that link you provided, and it appears their Kernel has more patches per release than Carters has pills, hi hi. Windows is constantly trying to block all the HOLES in the OS, hi hi.
Re: FLoC
Hmm, so let me see if I have this right: vmlinuz-5.11.0-37-generic is Linux kernel #5 that has had 11 minor upgrades. We don't know how many what you call patches all the previous upgrades had, but this current one is on patch #37. However, if you look at the change log, you will find that patch #37 has a list of fixes, upgrades, and additions as long as your arm. You can call them patches, but the bottom line is that the kernel has changed due to whatever was added, deleted or modified. I insist those changes are different versions of the kernel.
Windows isn't any worse than Linux when it comes to the number of kernel variations available to the public. Microsoft downplays kernel changes, or more correctly they don't bother their users with something like that. Linux OS's force you to deal with it by not deleting old and outdated kernels and want your permission to install new ones. That is quite perplexing to the non-initiated and very irritating to us folks more familiar with what is going on. Windows might be doing something similar, but it's transparent. As it should be.
Windows isn't any worse than Linux when it comes to the number of kernel variations available to the public. Microsoft downplays kernel changes, or more correctly they don't bother their users with something like that. Linux OS's force you to deal with it by not deleting old and outdated kernels and want your permission to install new ones. That is quite perplexing to the non-initiated and very irritating to us folks more familiar with what is going on. Windows might be doing something similar, but it's transparent. As it should be.
Re: FLoC
The whole thing is, we can keep using our existing Kernel and not bother with Kernel upgrades or updates, until we want them and can do them when we have time.
NOT when they are forced onto us like happens in Windows, and often keeps you from getting your work done until they are done taking over your computer for a while.
NOT when they are forced onto us like happens in Windows, and often keeps you from getting your work done until they are done taking over your computer for a while.
Re: FLoC
The people in the Linux world don't have the same concerns as do the people in Windows' world. It was true in both worlds that updates were an optional choice made by the computer user. And, like your own self, why bother to do upgrades if everything is working just fine. Not doing the upgrade does in fact save time (when it's not automated for off line hours) and potentially avoids any new problems introduced with the new versions. So the line of thought that time and efforts are being saved in Linux has become prevalent.
A lot of Linux users take pride in that fact and brag how safe it is to use Linux instead of Windows. Precisely because Windows is vastly more popular than Linux for PC's, the security risks are much higher in the Microsoft product. Fortunately, Microsoft has recognized the rapid increase in sophistication computer hackers are now deploying in their attacks. Much of that can be mitigated simply by upgrading the system, but, as I pointed out in the Linux mindset, Windows users won't upgrade either when given the choice. That's the long and the short explanation for why Microsoft is forcing upgrades to occur in it's newer operating systems. The current generation of operating system will determine when the computer device is not in use and do the upgrades at that time unless the user overrides that and performs updates at some other interval. Regardless, updates being made on a timely basis increases the security of the system.
And, by the way, hackers have not abandoned Linux attacks. In fact Linux servers are the favored target these days. So, you desktop users still don't have too much to worry about. But you are not as secure as you used to be just for using Linux OS's.
A lot of Linux users take pride in that fact and brag how safe it is to use Linux instead of Windows. Precisely because Windows is vastly more popular than Linux for PC's, the security risks are much higher in the Microsoft product. Fortunately, Microsoft has recognized the rapid increase in sophistication computer hackers are now deploying in their attacks. Much of that can be mitigated simply by upgrading the system, but, as I pointed out in the Linux mindset, Windows users won't upgrade either when given the choice. That's the long and the short explanation for why Microsoft is forcing upgrades to occur in it's newer operating systems. The current generation of operating system will determine when the computer device is not in use and do the upgrades at that time unless the user overrides that and performs updates at some other interval. Regardless, updates being made on a timely basis increases the security of the system.
And, by the way, hackers have not abandoned Linux attacks. In fact Linux servers are the favored target these days. So, you desktop users still don't have too much to worry about. But you are not as secure as you used to be just for using Linux OS's.
Re: FLoC
Back when I was using Windows, after I had a computer working exactly the way I wanted it to, I would do no more updates to it.
The main reason being is once I did a Windows update, then I had to do all the software updates for the programs I was using, and this could get real expensive real fast.
But as you know, when I dedicated a computer to a certain project and never upgraded it for years, then so many changes were made in the software that when I did do an upgrade, it couldn't read my data without buying all the upgrades I skipped over first.
And that is one of the things that drove me to GNU/Linux. Programs for Linux could read those old files and update them to generic file systems so the data would never be lost.
I'll tell you one thing I know from Debi's Windows computers. They are not very good at figuring out what times during the day a computer is normally in use. This often kept Debi up way past her bedtime, because she has things she does at certain times, and Windows wouldn't let her. But she still uses Windows anyhow, because of all the games she plays that are only available on Windows.
The types of attacks on Linux based computers are much different than on Windows computers, mainly because they can only attack a User and not the computer system itself, at least not easily as in Windows.
The main reason being is once I did a Windows update, then I had to do all the software updates for the programs I was using, and this could get real expensive real fast.
But as you know, when I dedicated a computer to a certain project and never upgraded it for years, then so many changes were made in the software that when I did do an upgrade, it couldn't read my data without buying all the upgrades I skipped over first.
And that is one of the things that drove me to GNU/Linux. Programs for Linux could read those old files and update them to generic file systems so the data would never be lost.
I'll tell you one thing I know from Debi's Windows computers. They are not very good at figuring out what times during the day a computer is normally in use. This often kept Debi up way past her bedtime, because she has things she does at certain times, and Windows wouldn't let her. But she still uses Windows anyhow, because of all the games she plays that are only available on Windows.
The types of attacks on Linux based computers are much different than on Windows computers, mainly because they can only attack a User and not the computer system itself, at least not easily as in Windows.
Re: FLoC
Windows 10, and now Windows 11, have the option to specify the exact hours in which your system can be updated. If you don't set that task schedule then the system tries to figure it out by itself. At update time all the downloads and unpacking of the library files is done in the background. Then when time comes to reboot a message appears telling you it will reboot during those hours it figured you would be idle. I always do the reboot immediately because, well, I'm impatient. LOL
You, my friend, were one of the more enlightened Windows users. Tuning the system to your specific needs isn't always easy peasy so that once you come to that point changing anything could be a disaster. Thus dedicating a particular profile to a specific task is brilliant. That saves a lot of expensive upgrading and downtime. You did the right thing. Preserving data is an entirely different problem. You might not need to be concerned about it in an open source system, but then I would point out that all that readily available data is, well, readily available. To hackers et al.. There is no need to breach an operating system when it's easy enough to download a database or other easily read data file. That's probably not considered a vulnerability and I also don't suppose many hackers care about your personal data to begin with. But they sure do like those corporate databases.
You, my friend, were one of the more enlightened Windows users. Tuning the system to your specific needs isn't always easy peasy so that once you come to that point changing anything could be a disaster. Thus dedicating a particular profile to a specific task is brilliant. That saves a lot of expensive upgrading and downtime. You did the right thing. Preserving data is an entirely different problem. You might not need to be concerned about it in an open source system, but then I would point out that all that readily available data is, well, readily available. To hackers et al.. There is no need to breach an operating system when it's easy enough to download a database or other easily read data file. That's probably not considered a vulnerability and I also don't suppose many hackers care about your personal data to begin with. But they sure do like those corporate databases.
Re: FLoC
Now that you mention it. I did have my old XP machine set up for years where I had to reboot to get into my Business programs, then reboot to get back into my Personal programs, and so did Debi is she wanted to use my computer, she had to log in as Debi.
But then Windows was designed to work that way.
I suppose after enough complaints about the update system, Windows finally had to make it more user friendly, hi hi.
Some hackers just write stuff to mess folks they don't even know up big time. Don't see how they get any joy from doing that.
But then Windows was designed to work that way.
I suppose after enough complaints about the update system, Windows finally had to make it more user friendly, hi hi.
Some hackers just write stuff to mess folks they don't even know up big time. Don't see how they get any joy from doing that.
Re: FLoC
Obviously you have not spent a lot of time on The Dark Web. LOL There are indeed people who hack and try to cause chaos just for the hell of it. There are contests to see how much havoc a single hacker can create or to see how many news outlets carry stories of their antics. Usually they are kids of very young programmers who are in love with their own ability to write code. State actors don't bother to do those kind of play acts, and those high potency bad actors know all about breaking and entering Linux (as well as all the other major OS's). Unless you are a person of interest to the FBI, any maliciousness performed on your computer by an outside party is easily defeated. Usually. Ransomware is particularly obnoxious and in some ways is a change of direction. They are using extortion techniques to get beg corporations and government agencies to pay up. That letter I published in another thread is a sample of the technique. The state actors, however, are stealing company secrets, such as the formulation for the COVID vaccine that the Russians happen to be using these days.Some hackers just write stuff to mess folks they don't even know up big time. Don't see how they get any joy from doing that.
Re: FLoC
Don't think I've ever been on the Dark Web, hi hi.
I did learn that the Ransomware attack that hit Debi's computer, was from either an image or a video that was shared all across the web. If you were scrolling down a social media site and some of the video's play automatically, BANG, you just got hit.
The FBI does try to track down a few of these folks based on the location you had to send your money for those who actually pay.
Most of us just take the hit, reformat our HD's and reload our OS and programs, and forget about all the lost files.
Yeppers, hackers do want to make themselves indirectly known by the name of their virus or malware they introduced.
I did learn that the Ransomware attack that hit Debi's computer, was from either an image or a video that was shared all across the web. If you were scrolling down a social media site and some of the video's play automatically, BANG, you just got hit.
The FBI does try to track down a few of these folks based on the location you had to send your money for those who actually pay.
Most of us just take the hit, reformat our HD's and reload our OS and programs, and forget about all the lost files.
Yeppers, hackers do want to make themselves indirectly known by the name of their virus or malware they introduced.