The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points

Linux is the best best performing operating system for personal use.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/27/2014 Category: Technology
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,367 times Debate No: 58241
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)




First round is acceptance


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


1. It Doesn't Crash
Linux has been time-proven to be a reliable operating system. Although the desktop is not a new place for Linux, most Linux-based systems have been used as servers and embedded systems. High-visibility Web sites such as Google use Linux-based systems, but you also can find Linux inside the TiVo set-top box in many livingrooms.
Linux has proved to be so reliable and secure that it is commonly found in dedicated firewall and router systems used by high-profile companies to secure their networks. For more than ten years, it has not been uncommon for Linux systems to run for months or years without needing a single reboot.
2. Viruses Are Few and Far Between
Although it is possible to create a virus to target Linux systems, the design of the system itself makes it very difficult to become infected. A single user could cause local damage to his or her files by running a virus on his or her system; however, this would be an isolated instance rather than something could spread out of control.
In addition, virtually all Linux vendors offer free on-line security updates. The general philosophy of the Linux community has been to address possible security issues before they become a problem rather than hoping the susceptibility will go unnoticed.
3. Virtually Hardware-Independent
Linux was designed and written to be easily portable to different hardware. For the desktop user, this means that Linux has been and likely always will be the first operating system to take advantage of advances in hardware technology such as AMD's 64-bit processor chips.
4. Freedom of Choice
Linux offers freedom of choice as far as which manufacturer you purchase the software from as well as which application programs you wish to use. Being able to pick the manufacturer means you have a real choice as far as type of support you receive. Being open-source software, new manufacturers can enter the market to address customer needs.
Choice of application programs means that you can select the tools that best address your needs. For example, three popular word processors are available. All three are free and interoperate with Microsoft Word, but each offers unique advantages and disadvantages. The same is true of Web browsers.
5. Standards
Linux itself and many common applications follow open standards. This means an update on one system will not make other systems obsolete.
6. Applications
Each Linux distribution comes with hundreds and possibly thousands of application programs included. This alone can save you thousands of dollars for each desktop system you configure. Although this is a very small subset, consider that the office suite is included as well as the GIMP, a program similar to (and many people say more capable than Adobe Photoshop); Scribus, a document layout program similar to Quark Xpress; Evolution, an e-mail system equivalent to Microsoft's Outlook Express; and hundreds more.
For the more technically inclined, development tools, such as compilers for the C, C++, Ada, Fortran, Pascal and other languages, are included as well as Perl, PHP and Python interpreters. Editors and versioning tools also are included in this category.
Whether you are looking for Instant Messaging clients, backup tools or Web site development packages, they likely are all included within your base Linux distribution.
7. Interoperability
More and more computers are being connected to networks. No system would be complete if it did not include tools to allow it to interoperate with computers running other operating systems. Once again, Linux is very strong in this area.
Linux includes Samba, software that allows Linux to act as a client on a Microsoft Windows-based network. In fact, Samba includes server facilities such that you could run a Linux system as the server for a group of Linux and Windows-based client systems.
In addition, Linux includes software to network with Apple networks and Novell's Netware. NFS, the networking technology developed on UNIX systems also is included.
8. It's a Community Relationship, Not a Customer Relationship
Other operating systems are the products of single vendors. Linux, on the other hand, is openly developed, and this technology is shared among vendors. This means you become part of a community rather than a customer of a single manufacturer. Also, the supplier community easily can adjust to the needs of various user communities rather than spouting a "one size fits all" philosophy.
This means you can select a Linux vendor that appears to best address your needs and feel confident that you could switch vendors at a later time without losing your investment--both in terms of costs and learning.
9. It's Not How Big Your Processor Is...
Because of a combination of the internal design of Linux and development contributions from a diverse community, Linux tends to be more frugal in the use of computer resources. This may manifest itself in a single desktop system running faster with Linux than with another operating system, but the advantages go far beyond that. It is possible, for example, to configure a single Linux system to act as a terminal server and then use outdated hardware as what are called thin clients.
This server/thin client configuration makes it possible for older, less powerful hardware to share the resources of a single powerful system thus extending the life of older machines.
10. Linux Is Configurable
Linux is a true multi-user operating system. Each user can have his or her own individual configuration all on one computer. This includes the look of the desktop, what icons are displayed, what programs are started automatically when the user logs in and even what language the desktop is in.



Thanks to my opponent for his argument. I am sort of out of my league here (tech-wise that is) but I'll do what I can. I am also a little confused about what my opponent is debating here. It seems like he is confused about his own resolution. He has to prove that Linux is the best performing operating system. It is sort of unclear what this means, but I do believe that this does completely negate price. If we are simply attempting to determine the best performing operating system, price will not come into account. That is how I will procceed in this debate, and I will disregard arguments geared toward price. He seems to be debating that Linux is simply the best operating system. These are very different things. (he also includes best in the title twice, which I assume is a mistake). My opponent also includes "for personal use," which will come into play later on. I would ask that my opponent clarify, because he has made this debate very unclear.


Since my opponent holds the BOP, I will keep my arguments to a minimum. Much of their content is present in the rebuttals anyway. I do have a couple main points that really elevate the Windows operating system over Linux.

1. The Freedom of Windows

Some of my opponents points deal with the fact that Windows is less secure and less stable than Linux systems. However, there is a reason for this. When you look at the amount of content that is available on Windows compared to Linux, you see a gigantic difference. More hardware, games, and overall content is available on Windows than any other operating system. The reason? A huge majority of computer-users have Windows operating systems on their computers. Because of this fact, developers usually target Windows first, and then move on to operating systems like Apple. Linux comes even after that because of the relatively small amount of computers that use Linux.

2. Video Gaming

Like it or not, this is a huge function of computers. Nowadays, so many computer users play videogames on their systemris. It has been estimate that over 300 million people play videogames on their computers. Therefore, gaming is a huge part of operating system performance. However, in the gaming sector, Linux users are especially deprived. On popular online game stores (such as Steam or Origin) nearly every game is compatible with Windows. Finding a game that works on Linux, on the other hand, is a rarity. Simply go to Steam or Origin and try to find Linux games. It's absolutely ridiculous. This is a huge part of computer usage and performance, but Linux falls completely flat in this sector.


1. It doesn't crash

Despite all the examples my opponent points out, this isn't a very large problem. I have had a laptop running on Windows 7 for about a year now and this hasn't been a real problem for me. If I ever do have problems with crashing, I quickly reboot my computer, (which takes like what? 5 minutes?) and go on with whatever I was doing. I find this advantage to be fairly insignificant. Also, I would like to point out that this is only really an advantage over Microsoft. Apple is a very stable operating system, like Linux. However, the reason Microsoft is unstable is because of the vast amount of the freedom of the system. Microsoft has a vast amount of configuration and software options. This offers much more freedom than Linux does. This point has been offset.

2. Viruses are few and far between

Again, this is not a very significant problem. My solution to the virus problem. Buy some virus protection. It is relatively cheap (some programs are even free) and can tighten up your computer security to that of a Linux or Apple. Because price cannot factor into this debate, this point is hardly even relevant. It has been negated.

3. Virtually Hardware-Independent

My opponent claims that Linux is the first to take advantage of new hardware. However, this is completely false. Manufactures of hardware often ignore Linux when writting drivers for their product. This is a major negative in Linux's case. Nice try Pro, but this simply isn't true. This point is negated.

4. Freedom of Choice

Even if Linux offers freedom of choice in some areas, it restricts that freedom in other areas. Why do you think Windows is so unstable and prone to crashes? It's because of the amount of freedom Windows offers. This also ties into the problem with viruses (which is hardly a problem). Linux and Apple control their systems, while Microsoft has such a vast amount of hardware and drivers that Microsoft can't monitor it all. I also think it is kind of ironic that my opponent brigns up hardware support. On Windows, you can find support for literally any problem there is. More than 80% of desktop computers run a Windows operating system. The amount of information and support is vast. This point has been offset.

5. Standards

I'm not totally sure what you are reffering to here. It doesn't seem like Microsoft or Apple don't do this. I am using Windows 7 on my computer and I can still access everything Windows has to offer. This is an example of outdated software still being relevant. This point is negated and least until my opponent elaborates.

6. Applications

As I have specified in my introduction, price shall not come into account in this debate. The bottom line is, all of these programs or their equivalents are available on other operating systems. Even if they do come free on Linux, this has no bearing on the debate. This point is completely negated.

7. Interoperability

I find it interesting that my opponent includes this point. My opponent is not debating the resolution. In the title, he mentions "for personal use." However, this point is all about the ways in which Linux is profficient in connecting to large servers via Samba. The thing is, if this operating system is really for personal use, a person wouldn't need it to be able to handle the strains of huge servers with many different client systems. This point is negated as it has nothing to do with the debate at hand.

8. It's a Community Relationship, not a Customer Relationship

While this point may be a benefit in some ways, it can also be a curse, especially in terms of simplicity. It's not nearly as simple or easy to find a Linux system to fit your needs. There can be benefits to a "one size fits all" system. This is also a drawback in terms of support. It is very easy to find support for systems in a "one size fits all" system. It is much harder if there are tons and tons of different vendors. This point has been offset.

9. It's Not How Big Your Proccesore Is

This is a nice benefit, and one I can't really refute (unfortunately I do not have the technical knowledge to do so) but it is not enough to make Linux single best operating system. I will concede this point solely out of ignorance, but this is one very small piece of the overall puzzle.

10. Linux is configurable

This is all fine, but Microsoft does the same thing. You can have multiple accounts on one computer and have all the different settings and configurations you want. This is not an advantage for LInux, its something other operating systems have as well. Apple OS' have simar options. This point has been negated.


Despite perhaps some technical advantages Linux has, Windows outclasses them in amount of content, technical support, simplicity, and video gaming. These advantages cannot be ignored. I have negated nearly all of my opponents points as well. As of now, the resolution is completely negated. Back to Pro.
Debate Round No. 2


Disk space used immediately after a fresh install. Measured in gigabytes; less is better.

While some people might complain that the test used the Ultimate editions of both Vista and Windows 7, they probably forget that the standard Ubuntu includes software such as an office suite as standard. NB: Vista failed to detect the network card during install, leaving us without an internet connection until a driver was downloaded on another computer.

Bootup and shutdown

Boot up time was also measured from the moment the machine was turned on, and the timer was stopped as soon as the desktop was reached. The Dell box does take about 20 seconds to get past POST, but to avoid questions about when to start the timer it was just started as soon as the power button was pressed.

Amount of time taken to boot, from machine being turned on to working desktop. Measured in seconds; less is better.

The 32-bit version of Windows 7 is the only one to beat the one-minute mark, but that advantage is quickly lost in the switch to 64-bit. Ubuntu has always been rather slow to boot, but as we understand it reducing boot time is one of the goals of the Ubuntu 9.04 release and other distributions are much faster to boot.

Amount of time taken to shutdown, from button being clicked to machine powering off. Measured in seconds; less is better.

Windows lags a little behind Ubuntu, with 64-bit again proving a sticking point - this time for Windows Vista.

IO testing

To test filesystem performance, four tests were ran: copying large files from USB to HD, copying large files from HD to HD, copying small files from USB to HD, and copying small files from HD to HD. The HD to HD tests copied data from one part of the disk to another as opposed to copying to a different disk. For reference, the large file test comprised 39 files in 1 folder, making 399MB in total; the small file test comprised 2,154 files in 127 folders, making 603MB in total. Each of these tests were done with write caching disabled to ensure the full write had taken place.

Amount of time taken to copy the small files from a USB flash drive to hard disk. Measured in seconds; less is better.

Amount of time taken to copy the small files from one place to another on a single hard disk. Measured in seconds; less is better.

Amount of time taken to copy the large files from a USB flash drive to hard disk. Measured in seconds; less is better.

Amount of time taken to copy the large files from one place to another on a single hard disk. Measured in seconds; less is better.

With the exception of Windows 7 while copying larges files around a hard drive, Windows generally suffered compared to Linux in all of these tests. Obviously Windows does have to worry about some things that Linux doesn't, namely DRM checks, but these figures show a drastic performance difference between the two.

Notes: Vista and Windows 7 really seemed to struggle with copying lots of small files, but clearly it's something more than a dodgy driver because some of the large-file speeds are incredible in Windows 7.

Both Vista and Windows 7 seemed to introduce random delays when deleting files. For example, about one in three times when deleting the files from our filesystem benchmark, this screen below would appear and do nothing for 25-30 seconds before suddenly springing into action and deleting the files. However, this wasn't part of our benchmark, so isn't included in the numbers above.

This was very annoying.

Richards benchmark

Notes: This was done using the cross-platform Python port of Richards. For reference, Ubuntu 8.10 uses Python 2.5.2, Ubuntu 9.04 uses Python 2.5.4, and we used Python 2.5.4 on the Windows tests. Even though the 64-bit results for Linux and Windows don't look that far apart, we have to admit to being very impressed with the Windows tests - the deviation between tests was just 3ms on Vista, and 5ms on Windows 7, compared to 20ms on Linux.

Amount of time taken to execute the Python Richards benchmark. Measured in milliseconds; less is better.

It's clear from that graph that having a 64-bit OS can make a real difference in compute-intensive tasks, but it's not too pleasing to see Windows pip Linux to the post in nearly all results.

Switching to ext4

All the Linux benchmarks above were done using ext3, so what happens when we switch to ext4? Well, not a lot:

Boot, shutdown and filesystem tests for Ubuntu 9.04/x86-64 using ext3 (blue) and ext4 (red). Measured in seconds; less is better.

Although there's no difference in shutdown speed, the boot time using ext4 dropped by 8 seconds, which is a fair improvement. We can probably discount the the USB to HD tests simply out of error margin, which leaves the HD to HD tests, and there we find a very healthy boost: 3.7 seconds were shaved off the small files test, making ext4 about 25% faster. Our tests also showed an improvement in the large file test, but it's not as marked.


Benchmarks are always plagued with questions, uncertainties, error margins and other complexities, which is why we're not going to try to look too deeply into these figures. Obviously we're Linux users ourselves, but our tests have shown that there are some places where Windows 7 really is making some improvement and that's good for competition in the long term. However, Linux isn't sitting stil.



Huh. I'm not really sure what my opponent is trying to get at with this round. He completely dropped all of my points and has instead presented us with multiple benchmark-testing graphs. It's also pretty obvious that he copied and pasted all of this off of some Linux website or forum. He claims that "obviously, were Linux users ourselves" and never actually address me or the debate in general. The funny thing is, my opponent actually does my debating for me in this round. Some of his benchmark tests even display Windows superiority. Just read my opponent's conclusion.

"Benchmarks are always plagued with questions, uncertainties, error margins and other complexities, which is why we're not going to try to look too deeply into these figures. Obviously we're Linux users ourselves, but our tests have shown that there are some places where Windows 7 really is making some improvement and that's good for competition in the long term. However, Linux isn't sitting still."

Thanks Pro. I won't look deeply into them if you won't. However, this also means that they can't really be used as proof in our debate. And remember, you hold 100% BOP. Let me clarify what has happened up to this point.

1. Pro has not gotten close to fulfilling BOP

2. Pro has neglected literally all of my arguments.

3. Pro has debunked his own benchmark arguments.

4. Pro probably ripped off all of his R3 (plagarism).

Overall, a very poor round. Luckily, Pro has two more rounds to right his sinking ship. He better make good use of them if he hopes to be a contender in this debate.
Debate Round No. 3


It seems as though you can't throw a rock on the internet without hitting an article which argues for the superiority of Windows over Linux. With titles like "Five reasons I'd rather run Windows 8 than Linux", these articles are a dime a dozen.

Truth be told, I've discussed my fair share of "Why X is better than Y" arguments over the years (almost always arguing in favor of the superiority of Linux-based systems). They're fun to argue. They're easy to argue. And, perhaps most important, they're somewhat cathartic to argue. Have a hard week where you've been forced to use a platform you don't particularly like? Argue about how it's worse than one you do like. It's good for the soul.

Are these sorts of articles a wee bit pointless? Sure. It's really just preaching to the choir, so to speak. But they're fun to read. They're almost like the tech-nerd equivalent of a gossip rag. I read 'em. You read 'em. We all read 'em (even if we pretend like we don't). But I have noticed something rather interesting about these sorts of articles...

Every article I have read, in recent memory, arguing that "Windows is better than Linux" makes the author sound a little bit, for lack of a better word, ignorant. The points that writers of these articles use to back up their hypotheses tend to be just plain silly and poorly thought out. They're really scraping the bottom of the barrel, looking for any possible evidence " no matter how ridiculous " to prove the superiority of Windows over Linux.

Here. Let me show you what I'm talking about. What follows is the very first reason given, for why Windows is superior, in a recent ZDNet article by David Gewirtz:

1. "Reason #1: As soon as you mention one distro, all the fanboys go insane claiming you've made the wrong choice."

You didn't just hallucinate.

The #1 reason to not use Linux, stated by a technology writer for both ZDNet and CNN, is that other people use Linux also. Some of those people have opinions. And you, with your obvious inability to exist within a universe with other people in it, will simply collapse into a fetal position and give up using computers altogether.

Bottom of the barrel reasoning. Heck. Not even in the barrel. In a box next to the barrel with the words "just some fish or something" scribbled on the top with a sharpie. But let's jump past that relatively catastrophic level of ignorance and tackle some of the more reasonable (at first glance) points that are made in many of these sorts of articles.

2. "Windows has more software."

One of the common mantras in making the case against Linux, particularly on the Desktop, is that Windows simply has more software available than Linux. In fact, I don't even think you can use the phrase "Windows is better than Linux" in an article without trotting out this tired old argument.

This is usually backed up by an example of an important piece of software that doesn't run on Linux, such as Adobe Photoshop.

There's just one problem with that argument: It's not at all true. Want to run Adobe Photoshop (or the vast majority of software often used to make this argument)... you can. With Wine.

Sure, you could make the argument that not all Windows software runs perfectly using Wine on Linux. Then again... I could make that same argument about Windows software not always running well on Windows itself. Which would be a far more damning point to make. And, because I'm not the type to kick a guy when he's down, I'm just going to move on...

3. "Windows has more commercial support."

This one gets pulled out fairly often.

The idea here is that people and companies want professional support " the ability to pick up the phone and call someone when they have a problem. This is, obviously, super critical. Especially for big businesses who have mission-critical work happening on their computers.

When this gets written, I feel like the writer wasn't even trying. This argument is immediately disproven by a quick Google search for "Linux enterprise support" and checking out the number of options on that first page of results alone. Multiple high profile companies offering various support options for both Linux servers and desktops.

In other words, "Lots and lots of commercial support for Linux".

4. "Windows is pre-installed."

Ah, now here's a valid point. At least it would be, if installing operating systems were difficult at this point in human history. It also assumes nobody has ever had to re-install Windows which, I am pretty sure, is a task that has been done many times by almost every man, woman and child.

Also... the logic here is "You already have this thing... so don't worry about that other thing that might be better. Also buy some new versions of the thing you have. But, seriously. Don't think about other, better things."

5. "Windows is easier to use."

The core of the argument here usually revolves around how it is impossible to use Linux without spending all day hunched over the terminal and typing archaic commands into Emacs. Which is both completely wrong (Linux desktop distros tend to be astoundingly easy to use nowadays), and also a wee bit insulting for the reader.

If a person is reading a technology article comparing two different operating systems... my guess is they don't have a panic attack the moment they need to type two words on their keyboard. I know, call me crazy.

I could go on and on with this but I think the point has been made. It sort of feels like all of these "X Reasons Windows is Better than Linux" articles are regurgitated versions of similar articles written in 1998. And, in the end, simply make the writers look uninformed about Linux.



I've noticed an interesting trend regarding my opponent. All of his arguments seem to be directed toward someone other than me. He doens't face my rebuttals, he dropps my arguments, and he rebuts points I haven't made. I suspect plagarism, however, I can't convict my opponent at this time. I will continue playing his game for this round.


1. My opponent is rebutting an argument I didn't even make. Not sure what he is trying to get at here. I'm going to ignore this.

2. Even if you can use a Linux program to get second-hand versions of Windows software, Windows still has the advantage here. Despite what my opponent said, Wine does produce second-hand versions of software. Lets take games for example. It is possible to port Windows versions of games over to Linux using Wine. However, these versions are at a much lower performance level and often take hours configuring games to work with Wine. This seems to conflict with what my opponent says about simplicity. Even worse, after all of this configuring, a single Wine update can break a game. [1] Wine is obviously not a suitable replacement for genuine Windows software. It is simply a cheap imitation.

3. This is sort of similar to an argument I made. I suppose I will justify it with a response. The argument I was making in this area was more reffering to community support. I wasn't reffering solely to commercial support. It's an undeniable fact that there will be more support for Windows operating systems given that a huge majority of computer users have a Windows operating system. If my opponent disagrees with this, I suggest he actually rebuts this point properly.

4. I never made this argument. My opponent is once again rebutting against nothing.

5. Again, my opponent is debating a ghost.


My opponent has once more ignored all of my arguments. Not sure how he expects to win if he continues to do this. My arguments stand strong.


Another dissapointing round. Let's look at what has occured up to this point.

1. My opponent hasn't yet stuck with an argument or line of reasoning.

2. My opponent hasn't rebutted any of my arguments.

3. My opponent hasn't directly rebutted any of my rebuttals.

4. My opponent appears to have plagarised.

5. My opponent hasn't come close to fulfilling his BOP.

My opponent best make excellent use of his last round if he wishes to contend in the slightest.

Debate Round No. 4


inaudita forfeited this round.


Well, that was an anti-climactic end. Just for kicks, I will now show proof that my opponent was plagarizing.

If any of these don't work, just copy and paste a line of my opponents text into a search box, you'll find the source.

This was a disgraceful debate on my opponent's part. I hope that in the future he will not start debates he doesn't plan to finish or copy other people's work. Vote Con

Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Malacoda 2 years ago
Great RFD. Thanks for voting.
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
R3: In the beginning, pro explains that typing in an article like "10 reasons why one operating system is more effective than another" is a bad way to prove a point. This may be true, but his whole R1 was such an article, making mockery of the point brought up. Pro then proceeds to attack an article not brought up by con. Con could have easily won this round, but in my opinion, "my opponent is debating a ghost" is not a sufficient rebuttal. I understand con's logic, but I think that con should have made an effort to rebut every claim. Con only made an argument for 2 out of 5 claims pro made. So, (win for pro)
R4: Obviously, due to the forfeit, win for con.
So arguments to con.

In conclusion, this was a good debate on con's side. Especially since con didn't know much about computers. Although, I don't think pro was very knowledgeable either. Anyways, I tried to make the RFD thorough. If you have any questions feel free to ask. This is my first RFD on here so, I'm not exactly a pro voter yet:)
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
Conduct- I'll begin with this. Literally all of pro's arguments were plagiarized. In the first round, no sources were cited, yet pro literally copied from this website word for word. ( I'm not sure anyone noticed this. The second round was also completely plagiarized, with no source. Conduct to con.
Arguments- Well, this was interesting. It is obvious that con doesn't know too much about computers, but con was still able to attack pro's arguments sufficiently. (For the sake of judging the arguments accurately, I'm going to pretend there was no plagiarism). I'm going to judge this round by round, which is a bit strange, but every round was so different. I feel like this is the most accurate way to judge this debate.
R1: Pro's initial arguments weren't that bad and neither were con's, but con was able to adequately negate them. Several notes about con's rebuttal: I don't buy con's point about money not being a factor. I agree that money is not a factor when looking at the price of the operating system itself, but when looking at the price of applications/antivirus programs to make the operating system run effectively, price can be taken into account. However, pro never brought this up later in the debate. Also, con used a lot of real life experiences with computers as evidence. It would have been really simple and much more effective to find a statistic. (win for con)
R2: Pro's arguments in this round were very weak. Aside from the fact that they were plagiarized, the source even noted that Linux might not be the best. Con didn't attack very much in this round, but I think bringing up the fact that the source conceded to the imperfection of Linux (and the imperfection of the statistics) was enough at this point. (win for con)
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
Sorry it's taking me so long. I promise I'll vote before the voting period ends.
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
I'll read over this and vote as soon as I can. PM me if I forget.
Posted by Malacoda 2 years ago
Haha, I spelled plagiarizing wrong twice.
Posted by gporta 2 years ago
Just wanted to point out that Inaudita's (pro) statistics in round 2 regarding performance (speed when booting up, moving files from HDD to HDD, etc) do not exactly count in my opinion since those stats rely on the specifications of the computer the OS is running on, and also the specs of the HDDs/USB drives.
Posted by Malacoda 2 years ago
Of course.
Posted by kevinorr 2 years ago
I know that PRO has bop, but I just wanted to see both of you make compelling arguments, not just "here's a page I found with numbers and crap" and "PRO is being stupid".

And I'm not trying to control you guys; I'm just giving input. That's what the comments are for, right? :)
Posted by Malacoda 2 years ago
Thank's for your advice kevinorr, but I am fully in control of the situation.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by debatability 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: poor plagiarism and failure to post actual good arguments fulfilling BoP