Why is Linux preferred over Windows by programmers?

>I have never seen pic related on linux
because Linux doesn't have atomic updates that would allow system rollbacks, they just straight out destroy your system when they break

>loonix is popular among certain groups because [insert corporate manufactured side-step]

Nice try NSA

because it's easier to manage your environment.

>Linux has easy to use symlinks, extremly useful when tinkering. If you ever had to change JAVA path on windows youbwould.know how shitty it is
did and never had a problem
Windblows/NTFS also has symlinks btw

Attached: based_and_redpilled.gif (367x219, 523K)

It's a status symbol for programmers

>I have never seen pic related on linux
and this is why I'll stick with windows

ok, something something NixOS and Guix

Why would you need atomic updates just rollback the broken packages.

Coreutils are simply way, way better to work with.

How does using linux equate to anti social?

Wat.

Communism

Linux distros- the stable, mainstream ones at any rate- tend to have more robust software packages, doesn't hold your hand and force you to install software updates (Windows will do this to you even if you turn off auto-update, sorry dude) and most Linux distros are still fundamentally designed to operate within a text based UI, which is significantly more nimble to operate if you know what you're doing.

Not trashing on Windows- I use it on a daily basis- but it's meant for a different type of user.

>The way libraries are handled both at compilation and execution are my personal reasons to choose Linux when it comes to programming specifically. Fucking around with DLLs and shit is a massive ball ache in comparison.

This. Particularly trying to make an object oriented shared library is a testicular torture, because microsoft never committed to any ABI for C++ classes in DLLs, and tells you to use COM instead if you want to expose an OO api. Writing a COM dll entails a lot of shittly little boilerplace code you have to write that's just completely unnecessary if you're trying to compile an OO library on linux.

You should actually lurk more.

>you can't say it's because of the terminal
the reason why linux is preferred by programmers in some situations IS because of the terminal though, you don't get to erase over a decade of history of programmers jumping ship to linux starting in the mid 2000s just because microsoft made powershell slightly less shit starting with windows 10
hell, despite having powershell, microsoft as well as the vast majority of people that have used it still know that despite it being technically superior to bash, not having to deal with 42 years of legacy will give you that advantage, that the primary use of powershell is administering windows machines on corporate environments rather than being a direct replacement for bash, ms continued SFU (which they started in *1999*, was still basically unheard of by windows 7) with WSL (aka bash for windows 10) and actually did a good job of it this time around in order to directly support their azure platform which, coincidentally, runs linux, microsoft's answer to bash supremacy on linux is to stick bash on windows to allow windows users to manage their linux boxes and let powershell be its own thing
pretending like bash isn't a reason to switch to linux is monumentally fucking retarded

It depends. If I were a C programmer I would definitely use Linux. C++ maybe, depends. I'm a Scala dev and there it doesn't make a difference because all I need is Scala, sbt and Intellij so I use Windows because over the years I have become a bit lazy.

Linux generally have better tools.
Windows is built around the paradigm Microsoft created where a computer can only run 1 application. If you want to run 2 applications, buy two monitors.
I have heard they added multiple desktops 20 years too late, but that doesn't change the mentality they created with it.

So because windows doesn't (or didn't, I haven't tried 10) have window management, people created these huge and complex applications that did everything from a single window.
Users loved it and it sold licenses and made people rich.
Photoshop, Matlab, inventor, games etc. Everything was made as 1 program that did everything you needed related to a task or group of tasks.
One of those tasks are programming.
But here comes the ugly head of this philosophy: the IDE.
Now, programming is pretty full and thus draws in nerds who can sit behind a desk all day to do it.
Those nerds often have 2-3 huge monitors and a Linux desktop with multiple virtual desktops.
That is a lot of screen estate to work on.
An IDE goes against this concept and gives you a single window that doesn't span across multiple monitors and desktops easily.
So instead, what if the whole system is an IDE? Instead of jamming several features into one application, make several applications that only does one thing.
Obviously the main task when those tools were designed were text processing, so those tools are really good for programmers and we sometimes forget that when we hear that a graphic designer doesn't want to use 50 different applications to do their work.

I have only used c++ on Windows once and it was very frustrating to setup compared to linux. It seems like a hassle, I don't think I would work somewhere they force programmers to use windows.

As I said, it depends on what you're developing in C++ but in most cases I would definitely go with Linux. Dealing with mingw, msys, cygwin etc is horrible. WSL seems comfy though, never used in a C++ project though.

This plus my work’s computers didn’t have windows 10 when I got there so I couldn’t use powershell anyway. But really linux works well despite everyone claiming it always breaks so I see no reason to change and setup I new system. If you’re going to spend the time custimizing the hell out of your setup you’ve got to learn when it’s reason to jump to the next new thing. If I made a change everytime something new came along I spend all my time setting up and no time doing work. I have config files I spent a long ass time working on for programs that don’t work on windows, am I supposed to just throws those away because windows has a powershell? I’ve gotten comfortable working via bash/awk/ag, etc but now I’m going to moveover and learn a new system when for no benefit?

And for larger tasks windows 7 on my work computer with a quad core i7 tended to hang and take twice as long (according to timers in my code) than my couple year old laptop with an i5 running Linux. Nor could it run other programs while performing these tasks like top or opening vim to view a log file that’s currently being written to to make sure I haven’t made a fuck up without havignto wait the hour or two for the whole thing to run. Not to mention it couldn’t run vim well at all with the command prompt so I had to use gVim which is slow to open kind of defeating a big part of the point of using vim in the first place.

And legit question does windows 10 have analagous programs for top, crontabs, and ssh/rsync? And can you get good terminal emulators for it? Could I continue to do everything from the command line. If not then powershell is not nearly enough to convert me.

It was just a hobby project I was giving to a friend who ran windows.
It wasn't system specific and it didn't depends on a ton of libraries. I just needed to compile a cmake project on Windows.

>Why is Linux preferred over Windows by programmers?
It's not. Get off of Jow Forums sometimes.

ambrevar.xyz/guix-advance/index.html

See

This user gets it.

I can run Chinese north Korean kgb infected pirated Windows software and games without actually getting any virus

>Windows has Powershell so you can't say it's because of the terminal
Powershell is a forced meme, literally the only reason to use it is if you are adiministrating a Windows server. The command line utility you'll find on most Unix-like operating systems will blow anything from MS out of the water.

Powershell is trash compaired to bash/zsh. Also the shear number of deep simple system configuration you can do on linux through is yhe biggest advantage of having a fully open source os.

>why use linux
i want to fit in at desktop threads

dumb remy poster

Powershell is shit
You can use powershell on linux
This thread sucks

Makes no sense.

bash is ubiquitous

Setting up btrfs to do rolling snapshots is utterly trivial.

I can make an entirely new OS on linux install random stuff maybe reverse some malware on VM now and then, and my system still rock like I installed it yesterday, in window one day it works the other it's updating after that you get a virus after that you need more proprietary software to fix how poorly programmed windows is... etc

everything you named is a lie or plain bullshit, the only reason to prefer linux over windows is because it is free

Powershell is trash.

This, literally 3-5 min of waiting compared to 15 minutes of spinning dot cancer while pajeet coded message tells you that it's doing something and suddenly goes into BSOD with "something went wrong"

Because when you work for a company you don't have to manually configure your own builds. Most people are writing Java code that is going to run on a server somewhere and they build it using an in-house program someone else wrote.

You shouldn't really care what a professional programmer thinks about desktop OS, the average power user knows more than they do.

That's a nice skirt. design Any male clothes like that?

I'm not a programmer but I also use GNU+Linux. I'm using Debian Sid with KDE at the moment. If there's something I don't like about it, it can be changed and I mean anything. Windows will never get there. GNU+Linux is like pizza, you get to choose the ingredients so it's only your own fault if you don't like the end result.

>Why is Linux preferred over Windows by programmers?
A decent package manager, and tooling that doesn't have to pretend to be running on a Unix system.

>Windows has Powershell so you can't say it's because of the terminal
Linux also has Powershell.

I have been a lifelong Windows user and I don't think I've ever successfully compiled a Windows program written by someone else on this platform without hours of pain. The only exceptions are POSIX applications compiled using POSIX tools.
Every single fucking thing distributed as a visual studio solution has been a clusterfuck of a headache in every regard you can think of.
Getting the right version of visual studio.
MANUALLY getting the right version of the dependency needed for the project that isn't even listed anywhere.
Getting the right dependency but not having it in the exact location as the original developer
having to use a fucking GUI to edit project configuaration
installing an IDE that requires you to fucking restart your OS and needs different files to build projects from the command instead of the same ones the IDE uses
tool conflicts
Everything about it has been horrible for decades and it's only been recently that they have done anything about it.
Visual studios is less bad now, Microsoft has multiple dependency managers (Nuget, vcpkg) with a unified package manager interface (oneget, which is good in concept but they refuse to put effort into developing it), and the community has filled in the gaps greatly.
There's package managers like scoop, POSIX ports like MSYS2, and MS's own WSL.

However, even with all the effort they've put into it, it's infinitely better than it used to be, but still not great. And some things are just weird, like PowerShell.
They made a scripting language that's actually good for both scripting and interactive use, made it the default shell, and by default make it so that you can't execute unsigned scripts.
Why in the fuck.

I expect in like 5 years things will have improved exponentially though. They're trying to fix it all but they're not there yet.

I guess a good way of summarizing the conflict in my opinion here is that the old stuff will likely eternally be bad since there's not much MS can do to fix it.
They've done things to fix it but we have to wait for developers to build on top of it and for users to actually update their OS which they adamantly don't want to do for no obvious reason.
If a developer is still relying on VS from 2005 without using a dependency manager and without a version control system, it's on them to switch to a modern release, use git, and build a dependency list.
If everything was like this from the start, I'd have no complaints and Windows would be an easy recommendation for getting shit done.

>Windows has Powershell so you can't say it's because of the terminal
Powershell is a shitshow compared to bash.

Nixos gives me a declarative and reproducible operating system, package managment, and development environment. Nothing like that in windows.

>Why is Linux preferred over Windows by programmers?

I doubt this is true. Anyone that has actually been on a industry project will tell you they love Visual Studio.

It is a vocal minority thing.

why do you need male clothes?

>tfw none of the anons can name one legit use for linux
>everything oscillates around desktop use of the system
Ask yourself a question - where can you make money with linux where you can't with windows? E.g. where would someone need to deploy many instances of an os?

You haven't heard of Clear Linux. It's designed so that doesn't happen, and it's faster than every other distribution out there. It's rolling release too.

I have to disagree with this. Bash is so bad that nobody wants to use it in any regard, it exists solely for legal and legacy reasons.
As an interpreter it's slower than the shell it's derived from (Bourne) and it's alternative (Almquist). It's so slow that distros had to reimpliment ash just like they did for sh in the first place (as dash).
The extensions are not worthy of note or use compared to other shells, again so unworthy of importance that it's possible for distros to replace the default sh interpreter as dash which lacks those extensions
as an interactive shell there's no real reason to use it either, shells that are older than it are both faster and have better unique syntax/features and the same is true for shells made after it.
The one and only reason bash exists is because GNU obviously couldn't use the original bourne shell because of the license. And it only exists today because it was the default for so long.

For scripts people target bourne and run in a bourne compatible shell. For interactive I legitimately see anything other than bash, most people I know today are using fish and zsh, some use ksh, I use tcsh, and some people even swear by powershell (because it's object pipeline is unique and can be sensible).

I have never once seen anyone speak well of bash specifically, anything good said about it is inherited from bourne.

Honestly, I think it's just some hipstery shit because normies cant into tech- much less an OS that isn't pre-installed. I mean, I really like that linux is free.. and just like apple iOS, (which is really just linux in a dress btw) its superior to windows for certain uses. In general however; you can bet your ass I'm building computers for windows and just running Linux out of a virtual

>Windows has Powershell so you can't say it's because of the terminal
Lol

In five years "Windows" will have become a fork of GNU/Linux

While I would rather anything other than the GNU userland, I would kill to have a POSIX +Win32 compatible userland on top of an open source NT.
Like a modern and open version of OS/2.
We're most of the way there already.

In a perfect world I'd be running Win32/NT bundled with the Plan9 userland and IPC concepts in a BeOS/Haiku-like desktop environment.

Why do guys prefer to drive sporty cars instead of box trucks? They both have manual transmissions, so you can't say it's because of the transmission...