I'm sure you know why that is not a good example either.Pyrite wrote:A reverse example would be: both have a clearscreen command, but it is easier in Windows to type "cls" than to type the full "clear" in Linux.
(And otherwise: alias cls='clear')
I only want to make clear it's hard to find a good example.
Although it is not "free", ntfs for linux exits. The best way to use ext2/ext3 from a windows machine i know, is with a tool like explore2fs. Now, which one do you think is easier to use?Pyrite wrote: And you can't say something like, on Windows you are restricted to fat32/ntfs. Well technically on Linux you are restricted to Linux filesystems though. Last I checked, you can't run Linux natively on NTFS anymore than I could run Windows on ReiserFS.
But that was not really my point. I was referring to LVM which is way easier than messing around with partition magic or whatever.
If my mom needs to surf/send e-mail/write a document she'll be more efficient with windows (and it's tools) because that is what she knows. There has been a time where i too though that linux didn't allow me to be productive (certainly not more productive) than in a windows environment.
But i was fed-up with outlook express taking ages when i wanted to read usenet messages on my computer. And i was suprised how fast it went with slrn. (Yes i know, it doesn't have a fancy gui). Another example is GTetrinet which runs smooth when a server performs a cheat control, while TetriNet for windows just seems to slow down my whole computer.
On the other hand, there are applications (like Eclipse) that give a much more responsive feeling on windows than on linux.
Therefore, both have their pros and cons. And my point remains: Just use the one you are most productive with.