Sure, having access to source code is better than not having access to source code but this doesn't affect the average Joe at all and it also won't affect 99% of corporate users either. Yes, yes, I'm sure people will be able to bring up anecdotal evidence that they've taken advantage of open source and I wouldn't dream of disputing it, I'm only saying that open source is as useful to most people as the engine hood of their car: sure they can open it but most won't.
I have, on occasion, dipped into the code of one Linux application or another, and when all was said and done, was happy with the results. Could I have done that with a closed-source Windows application?
Huh? You could have dipped into the code of an open source Windows application and you couldn't have done it with a closed-source Linux application so I'm not sure what this has to do with Windows vs Linux.
2. Licensing freedom vs licensing restrictions
Agreed.
3. Online peer support vs paid helpdesk support
Agreed but: Why do so many say Microsoft support is superior to Linux paid support?
Who says this?
4. Full vs partial hardware support
Linux has better support for older hardware, Windows has better support for newer hardware. I'm still pissed that my Creative XFi sits useless while I'm booted into Linux.
5. Command line vs no command line
But for the end user, this is not necessarily the case. You could use a Linux machine for years and never touch the command line. Same with Windows.
Good, so we agree that this is not an issue for most people.
And if a user does get the Windows command line up and running, how useful is it really?
Wait, I thought we just agreed that the command line in both Windows and Linux is simply not necessary. Funny how suddenly it is!
Regardless, I totally disagree that the Windows command line is not useful. You've been able to build incredibly powerful scripts with vbscript for many years now and Powershell is a fantastically powerful tool. Finally, things like Perl are available for the Windows command line too.
6. Centralized vs non-centralized application installation
Agreed for end users. For the corporation though, Windows offers excellent centralized application installation tools. I'm sure Linux does too although I've never had cause to research this.
7. Flexibility vs rigidity
This isn't fair. You say that with Windows, you are stuck with the default desktop unless you go third party and then you say that Linux is fantastic because of things like Compiz. Um, you realize that Compiz is "third party" too, right?
However, one thing I love about Linux is that you have much deeper flexibility than you do with Windows. My MythTV box uses SUSE but instead of KDE/GNOME, I went with fvwm since it uses far fewer resources. My Linux server (an old, tired, "I refuse to die" PC) doesn't have a windows manager installed on it at all. There is a reason why XP and not Vista is the one installed on things like the Asus Eee PC!
8. Fanboys vs corporate types
Instead, Windows has a league of paper-certified administrators who believe the hype when they hear the misrepresented market-share numbers reassuring them they will be employable until the end of time.
Wow, I'm glad you don't generalize too much! Nice of you again to dismiss 90%+ of the computer using public. The funny thing is that I bet you that there are numerically more "smart" Windows administrators than there are "smart" Linux administrators. Sure, there are probably more "paper MCSEs" than "paper RHCEs" but that has more to do with the popularity of the OS and less to do with how suitable the OS is for the task at hand.
9. Automated vs nonautomated removable media
Think about it: on a multi-user system, if everyone had instant access to a disk that had been inserted, what would stop them from deleting or overwriting a file you had just added to the media?
Now you simply need to explain how Windows, a multi-user system for 15 years, manages to get around this.
10. Multilayered run levels vs single-layered run level
Yup, gotta love the flexibility here.
-------------------------------------
I think in the end, Linux wins on flexibility every time and if my post seems down on Linux, it isn't, it is down on those who slam Windows with lies. There is plenty of stuff to slam Windows over so I really don't understand why people need to make stuff up or exaggerate the problems that do exist. I would love to see Linux be "the" OS that is installed on the Dell you just bought from Best Buy. I guess I just look around my life right now and I'm pretty pleased with what I'm able to accomplish with a mix of Vista, Linux, XBox, and Windows Mobile. Isn't that what is important in the end?
