Slashdot Mirror
Linux vs. Windows: What's The Difference?
underpar writes "This zdnet article covering Microsoft's Tech Ed conference quotes one of the speakers, Mark Russinovich, as saying that Linux is becoming more and more like Windows. He cites many examples of where Linux 'copies' Windows and other operating systems. He says the only current difference is 'how windowing is handled.'"
What's the difference? About $299.
Or much more if you consider a server comparison.
1. Security. // Linux is usually more secure by default and is able to be secured easier due to the fact that users have complete access available to the system
// as a quasi-altruistic community, the Linux world often has Google-like aspirations regarding concepts of free information and such - as opposed to views that are arguably centered on money alone
// most uptimes in Linux are measured in months and years rather than days and weeks (with exceptions, of course), and the GUI being a completely separate component from the kernel helps this greatly
// nuff' said
2. Philosophy.
3. Stability.
4. Cost.
Those are just a few for starters...
dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
"Both operating systems had their origins in the 1970s and their real birth in the 1990s and have been evolving quickly since then. The two operating systems are very similar from a kernel perspective, because as engineers work on problems they look around to see what's working elsewhere. So you end up with a lot of similarities," said Russinovich.
That means that it's incredibly hard to say that somebody actually *copied code* from somebody else- they may have just been thinking along the same lines. AdT, are you listening?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Windows comes from a monopoly that is ever more desperate to extend that monopoly.
I have to agree here. Linux is becoming more and more a "desktop" operating system. Default installs with lots of bloat and installed services. One of the reasons I try to avoid using mainstream software... besides any security (etc.) advantages, is because I like being a geek and doing things the hard way :). I like to get my hands dirty. I also
like powerful, flexible software that does the job over fancy GUIs and
the like. But, it seems Linux is drifting away in the direction of
Windows.
HOWEVER, one of the reasons the Linux community has become so splintered (different distros, etc.) is because people are taking Linux in different directions. SuSE, LinSpire, and many other commercial providers are trying to make Linux a friendly, easy-to-use experience. Whilst Slackware and Debian are sticking to their roots.
As a side note: BSD is a server OS (no question about it). Windows is a desktop OS (being twisted into a server platform). But which is Linux?
...that, to me, separate Linux (and, by extension, BSD) from Windows
1) A monolithic kernel that can be customized and tailored by any end user willing to take the plunge, or at least just compile from source.
2) A variety of command shells that are intended to be used as full-fledged operating environments, without the need for a GUI.
(ObDisclaimer: haven't read the article, probably won't)
Some of the windowing environments and GUI-based programs try to emulate the Windows look-n-feel, but I haven't run across many things in the rest of Linux-based operating systems that can be thought of as copied from Windows... well, except for the embarrassingly registry-like GConf2 database (the first time I used the graphical gconftool to change spatial Nautilus back to usable-for-me Nautilus, I nearly regurgitated at the bad memories it brought back).
I think this guy might as well say any operating system "copies" things from Windows, Mac OS, and every other operating system.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
For example, on making the kernel re-entrant (which refers to letting software be executed multiple times simultaneously), Russinovich cited an article he wrote which pointed out the lack of this feature in the Linux kernel. "Molnar said it was a 'clear red herring', said Russinovich, "A month later he turned around and made all paths in the Linux kernel) r-eentrant." "I also pointed out that a pre-emptible kernel is a lot more responsive to a high priority thread," said Russinovich, moving on to his next target. "The Linux kernel 2.6 was made fully pre-emptible."
I think this guy is trying to say that it was his articles that made the kernel jockeys change the way they do things. Thats a pretty big call to make.
Actually, if I get the "cheap" version of SUSE, it's $30. If I get Windows XP Home Edition with a piece of hardware, it's $90.
Isn't that $60?
If the main advantage of Linux is based on price, it's starting to become less and less of an advantage. Perhaps you guys should start working on usability and driver coverage. But don't take my word for it, I'm just 90% of the market.
Lucky you- I'm using Server 2003 as a server- and it regularly crashes. Just about every time it downloads a so-called "update". I'm forced to run Roxio's GoBack just to be able to reboot it once every few weeks- usually when it crashes, it crashes hard (as in, "Your updates have been installed, reboot now? Yes,of course. Oh, too bad, I'm going to bluescreen during the boot sequence now.).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Gnome/KDE/etc, is getting just about as hard as Windows is.
And the NVidia driver for Linux is getting more stable, and will soon be as stable as Windows.
Linux used to be easy, and Windows used to have decent driver support, but this isn't the case anymore.
Seriously,
Saying that two things are the same based on a movement towards similar outward apearence is specious in the extreeme and not particularly newsworthy.
In point of fact, wind-tunnel tests in the mid-to-late seventies proved that the essentially ultimate shape for a four-wheeled ground vehicle with a human-sized passenger compartment, was a sort-of convex (raised in the middle) sausage with wheels at the ordinal extremes.
In the interveening years we have seen cars steadly aproaching this shape. This does not make these cars "the same except for how they handle their windows."
There is a big difference between an electric town car and a Mini Cooper Turbo. They look a lot alike, but technologically they are completely different. And the apeal and prime target for both.
Comparasions of technology based on the outer skin is representative of a complete lack of understanding of even reason.
After all, beauty is only skin deep and is in the eye of the beholder, but ugly, it is universally understood, goes straight through to the bone. 8-)
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
But I'm particularly entertained by the fact that security is the lead-in -- "Security and the way windowing is handled remain two of the diminishing differences between Linux and Windows" -- and then isn't mentioned AT ALL until the very end of the article, with no examples whatsoever, and no indication as to which OS is playing catch-up.
Way to hide your biases, ZDNet.
Dance like nobody's watching. Sing like you're in the shower. Fuck like you're being filmed.
The first aspect is that linux isn't a black box; it really can be fixed if it's broken, whereas windows stays broken until Redmond cares.
But that's really minor.
The single biggest major aspect which explains why I don't want to use windows any more isn't security, it isn't stability, it isn't price, it isn't source access.
It's true scriptability.
In windows you can use packaged software, or write your own. There isn't much middle ground. You're a drooling loser, or an ultrapowerful developer. Windows powerusers can not readily bend it to their will beyond configurations.
On unix in general and free unices most especially, a power user can use the basic interface (not an added layer like VB or cygnus) to make things happen. Power use and programming on unix shade into each other.
When DOS did not have a truly scriptable environment, they fell behind. They have never caught up, and as long as they insist that their basic interface is a pretty collection of icons, they never will. It is possible to create a truly scriptable truly graphic environment, but Redmond hasn't done it and shows no sign of it.
Nah, it's more like this ... with the circle (in dots) being common ideas, which grows larger and larger and bulges in some directions as two of the three share ideas that the others don't. The three lines represent new ideas coming in. Over time, each OS picks up the best (and sometimes worst) features of the others.
.
.\ . . ..
/
/
Windows
\
\ .
. \______ Linux
. /
/
Mac OS
If there was one evil I could rid us of in this world it would be the Windows Registry... Please MS, take the hint and get rid of it!
One friggen BIG difference is the EULA for each system. One is restrictive, nasty and flat-out borderline criminal while the other gives the user freedom especially in the area of quiet enjoyment and quiet possession. Some terms to mean that you can use the software as you see fit and the right to privacy.
For me, an OS is just a tool and to place so many restrictions on your use of that tool is going too far by Microsoft.
The article says, and I quote:
The link to 'readily admits' points to another ZDNet article which says nothing of the kind. I take it that the AdT institute's FUD is spreading rapidly for some reason. People have to understand that just because someone spreads FUD, that does not turn an undisputed fact into a contested issue. Jesus.
I miss my rubber keyboard.(Homepage)
1) You can't buy WinXP Home without the hardware for 90, so that's a bad comparison.
,maybe we can talk.
2) Usability still needs some work, but it's progressing very quickly (much quicker than windows did), so people HAVE BEEN working on it for quite a while.
3) Most linux drivers are written by independent developers (with obvious exceptions, nvidia, ATI, several others). MS publishes an API and thousands of companies have to build to it. When most of the drivers that don't ship w/Windows are built in house by MS, then you'll have a decent comparison
SO you're in the majority? That doesn't prove much. If you like Windows, cool, it's your choice and we respect that; Making extremely poor justifications for your choice cost you some of that respect.
Now, you wanna talk about TCO with linux maybe being higher (unix techs cost more), etc.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
It was always about the layered services, and always will be, to the majority of users - the users are what's changing ...
In the last few years, Windows has added:
Support for symbolic links
Support for Kerberos authentication
The "runas" command to allow running certain processes as a privileged user
And in the future, Windows is planning to make the GUI optional on server products for performance reasons.
Yes, Linux is truly catching up to Windows. That's the only way I can explain how they are becoming more and more alike.
In fact, my workstation won't let me restart or shutdown without asking why I'm doing that. It gets annoying if I have to reboot for something, but it tells how little MS expects to have the OS go down.
This isn't because they don't expect it to go down. This is because it is designed to be a server operating system. Asking why you're shutting down or rebooting is a feature present to give system administrators a record of what is going on with the machine. It may or may not have anything to do with Microsoft not expecting the operating system to crash.
Mark Russinovich is well-known NT kernel expert and I respect him. Summary posted here is just plain misleading and is a flamebait for zealots from both camps. It's just disgusting.
He doesn't say a thing about user-mode software, usability etc. The article is about kernel differences, so saying "Linux is becoming more and more like Windows" is plain wrong. He doesn't even mention API.
What article actually's talking about is how various successful ideas in kernel co-relate in windows kernel and linux kernel and how windowing is handled. He talks about pros(good remoting) and cons(all calls are actually messages) of X Windows.
And he says "Security was also another area where there significant differences remain between the two operating systems. But ultimately, said Russinovich, the gap between the two operating systems will continue to narrow to a point where their underlying kernel becomes irrelevant."
WTF the article poster pulled that "He says the only current difference is 'how windowing is handled.'"
Well... I cannot really express how I feel about such misleading posts slip. Especially if it's about GOOD people and experienced coders like Mark is.
- Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
- Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
Oh and there are RPMS
RPMs have given me install problems in the past. Some have refused to install and i being only a novice linux user, had one hell of a time finding out why.
My solution was to give up linux at that point because i had been using it for a few months. I did like it quite a bit. The powerful tools that linux comes with are quite incredible however gui graphic performance, very hard install problems (dependencies, rpms that wont install etc) and the fact that i had to use Wine to run Newsbin pro.
Linux was a fun experience but it was a little rough for me. With a little bit of smoothing out, linux which is an incredible system, could be as easy as windows.
The problem from what i'm guessing is the open source nature of projects. Limited resources to make a single conforming ui flow etc...
I've been thinking about running linux again actually. Its a beast that has always been in the back of my mind nagging me. Its something that is quite fun and its an adventure. A New OS, a powerfull one, that does things windows doesnt... but windows does a lot that linux has problems with and well i kind of need those things... so it keep sme from going back. But i would go back to linux on one of my pcs.
First off, what the hell is "X-windows"? I know of the X Window System, X11, X, X.org, XFree86 -- but I know nothing of this "X-windows."
Now, what the author of the article fails to point out, is that the more significant difference between the operating systems, is that one requires the use of GUI display, while the other finds it entirely optional.
While I may be modded as troll or flamebaiter, I feel compelled to say that I find the subject ZDNet article, and the underlying talk at the conference, to be a steaming pile of ____. I guess this Slashdot article has some value in terms of showing folks how the world seems to work these days (always has?). But, man, if I had attended the conference and used my valuable time there to attend this talk, I would have felt as though such time had been completely wasted. I mean, what was the point? Is this the sort of content that Windows developer's want to spend their time on?
Perhaps it was intended as nothing more than FUD; if so, that is a sad commentary on things, isn't it?
END RANT
What makes you think it's not a bug in VMWare then?
Although Linux creator Linux Torvalds readily admits that he based his work on Minix, both he and Tanenbaum refute claims that Torvalds borrowed more than he admitted.
The "borrowed more than he admitted" phrase implies that Linus admitted borrowing something in the first place, when the reality is that he denied taking anything from Minix.
Your diatribe was lovely... and completely off-topic.
The article was discussing kernels, not desktop interfaces.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
Windows is catching up on stability and Linux is catching up on ease of use. These will likely be more or less resolved problems in a couple of years. On the other hand, one system will allow allow you to do whatever you want with your computer (as long as its possible, and you know how to tell the computer what you want it to do), and the other will allow you to do whatever someone else wants you to be able to do with your computer.
-jim
Sure, downloading Linux ISOs is much faster.
Change is very difficult - that's what lock-in is all about. Sit an intelligent Windows user or developer down on debian and they will be completely lost. Soon they'll be back on Windows.
So, since the vast majority of potential Linux users are only familiar with Windows, Linux must become more like Windows (at least in terms of interfaces) if it wants to grow.
It doesn't mean that the Windows' way was better - better has nothing to do with it. The Windows' way is simply more familiar, and that is very important.
Devil's Advocate:
./configure
how about
I've seen Linux-distribution-specific checks in some configure scripts...quite annoying (especially on Solaris). I really wish all programmers who choose to use autoconf actually put forth the effort to make their software portable. If they don't want to do that amount of work, just give me a big configuration file that I can edit manually.
Oh and there are RPMS
The man page for rpm is 15 pages long. Also, installing a single RPM can quickly turn into a game of 52 Pickup.
this isn't reocket science
Troubleshooting compilation and installation issues is practically rocket science. I've been using UNIX for years and I still struggle sometimes to understand exactly why the linker failed or why a certain header file is generating syntax errors.
Quite honestly, the best installers I've experienced under UNIX really are the equivilent of setup.exe, because they are self-extracting shell scripts complete with prompts for the install directory and other parameters. It isn't really necessary all the time to have the software managed by the package database, and just deleting a directory tree is the best way to "uninstall".
-- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
Duh. Now put it in a variable so that you
can use the date for something in the program...
like naming a file or updating a log entry...
I'm running Windows XP on VMWare in Linux. Linux doesn't crash, it keeps on chugging along fine, but Windows XP in the vmware session is what reboots. its not a hardware problem, otherwise it would kill linux too
It is most definitely a "hardware" problem - it's a virtual hardware problem. You are incorrectly assuming that VMWare doesn't have any bugs with emulating your hardware and running Windows.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
It's no secret that Linux (like most other operating systems) is moving closer to Windows in many respects, but the article seems to ignore the fact that Windows has been steadily moving closer to UNIX as well.
Since it's introduction, NT has grown POSIX compliance, terminal services, adopted parts of the BSD TCP/IP stack, and now even has a free UNIX emulation layer available directly from Microsoft in the form of Services for UNIX.
It's great to see that Operating Systems are adopting things that work from each other, but there's certainly no grounds to say that either Windows or Linux is clearly superior in every respect and the other is playing catch-up, which is what this guy seems to be implying.
"I also pointed out that a pre-emptible kernel is a lot more responsive to a high priority thread," said Russinovich, moving on to his next target. "The Linux kernel 2.6 was made fully pre-emptible."
I can personally promise that the preemptability of Windows was not a factor in the desire to code a preemptive kernel or its eventual design.
and download virtually any windows version on suprnova.org... Or if you really insist on living in that cave with dialup access, then just find some Windows CDs being resold on the Internet, or buy from some street corners in China, etc..
Thats a hopeless argument.
I can argue linux isn't free at all using your exact same method.
You need a computer to run linux, the computer isn't free, therefore linux isn't free.
QED.
i demand a rite of passage. i went throught it. and i am just a joe six pack construction worker. free beer usually means there's work involved. i have a choice. i made it. it works for me. YMMV.
Serenity now, insanity later.
His argument does not show Linux converging to Windows anymore than it show Windows converging to Linux.
have you actually tried to write a non trivial cross platform application? (Non GUI - obviously you're going to find differences when you're writing GUI applications)
Apache is a terrible example, they had to pratically rewrite the server portion from scratch to make Apache on Windows perform anywhere near as well as it does on Unix platforms. That's because the kernels are fundamentally different.
The video support is completely irrelevant, the real differences are the threading and process model, the filesystem features especially file locking (argh, I hate windows file locking semantics - i _WANT_ to be able to delete or rename a file that happens to be open by a process somewhere).
In Windows, Only Files are files. So you _have_ to use send() and recv() on a socket, you cant just use write() and read() to ensure network transparency, you'd have to do the abstraction yourself.
The whole philosophy of windows seems to not understand abstraction or polymorphism. In the Windows world that seems to be - provide two different APIs that use two different types of objects, and apply similar methods to them. as opposed to One API that can use multiple object types and use the same methods on them and have those methods do what is appropriate for that object type.
The differences are not insurmountable, but they're definitely there, and it's the programmers, the administrators and the power users that feel them the most.
It's the casual user that wont notice the difference.
Advanced users are users too!
But there are several points to keep in mind:
Linux being configurable to look like Windows is a necessary evil for now. When Windows marketshare has declined sufficiently, common Linux GUIs can say good bye to Windows and go their own ways.
Complete Openness: Yes, Linux is completely open. Nothing is hidden from the user. The boot process is not hidden, the system configuration is not hidden, the kernel is not hidden, the source code is not hidden. It seems as if the people that wrote it actually want people to know what it's doing and how it's doing it. One can completely alter the configuration of almost all aspects of the operating system with straight text files and a simple ASCII editor.
Native Interface: POSIX-compliant mode for Windows? Hmmm...something I've never seen in my entire life, so that gives me an idea as to how common that is. CLI is, and will always be, the native interface for Linux and all other UNIX variants. GUI is the native interface for Windows. They've shoved the DOS heritage into the background.
Multi-User Environment: UNIX was designed as a multi-user environment from the very beginning, and of course, Linux inherits this. It works very well. For Windows it was an afterthought, or at least it seems like it. Windows systems don't seem to work as well in large multi-user (or multi-application, for that matter) environments.
Sure, with days of mind numbing effort you can download and install dozens of different free programs to make Windoze sorta bearable. Then in less than four months that machine that sorta worked will sorta be owned by viruses anyway and you get to start all over again unless you imaged your whole drive using yet more free or expensive tools. Or you could spend less than an hour getting all of it on any modern Linux distro and not have to worry as much.
The choice is obvious. Windoze is nothing like Linux, no matter how much free software you port to it.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I don't understand those who use a weird unreadable combination of bash/tcsh/ksh/awk/sed/m4/makefile script when one simple perl script can do it all
If you use a Perl script in a program that you distribute, then you make the Perl interpreter a dependency, and not all programs' circumstances can accept this. If you use a Perl script on Windows, then you make a high-speed Internet connection a dependency, as it costs big bucks to get a license to distribute ActivePerl on CD.
You in the Linux community have put enough pressure for Microsoft to compete again. The parent is right; Windows Longhorn will indeed ship with all the compilers pre-installed, specifically so that no matter what machine you sit down at, the tools will be available to you.
.NET technology and the level of community involvement the developers have shown. Thanks to the OSS community.
They've been more open lately, specifically because the heat being put on them. As a result, they're slowly becoming a better company. I'm very happy with the
It's quite ironic, that one of the nice things about Windows historically was the notion that installation of applications was somewhat standardized: you just run SETUP or stick the disk in and it would automatically install and guide you through the process.
Nowadays, installing a Windows app is anything but easy; you have to shut down everything on the computer and reboot at least once. Un-installing applications is 'iffy' at best, and if something goes wrong, or you need to migrate to another machine or hard drive, most users have to trash everything and re-install everything from scratch.
In reality, Unix has become a lot more standardized and consistent in terms of application management, installation and migration. It's really a lot easier now to remove an app from Unix, whereas with Windows, you never know if you could ever remove a program without leaving tons of remnants and agents clogging things up.
Linux is a true multi-user OS. Windows NT and 2000/XP/2003 are not true multi-user systems. You have to run Terminal services or Citrix to get multi-user functionality.
Also, Linux can behave as a true server node. Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 behaves as a hybrid node. It's both a workstation and a server. Linux can be run without a GUI. This consumes less resources and allows the system to be run simpler. Besides, a server is administered remotely. This makes a desktop seem silly and impractical. And Microsoft bundles alot of stuff that can't be uninstalled (i.e. Internet Explorer, outlook express, etc) without special tools.
I would like to see Windows running on a mainframe, then I would change my judgement maybe.
Not to mention the insane price tag on their shitware, then you have to lump in Security software and the yearly fees for AV updates, then the additional time for daily system upkeep/scans/crash recoveries, time running spyware/adware apps and cleaning up malware, paying for some of those spyware/adware programs, trips to a dealer if you can't RTFM, downtime and lost productivity from NUMEROUS exploits, gaping security holes that M$ refuses to patch for years, IT hordes constantly playing security cat & mouse, and if you were in the wrong place at the wrong time...no damn power because grids across multiple states were dropped. Need I continue?
Shut the fuck up M$ and patent the buggy super exploitable unreliable problem causing OS.
ok there are Shell Replacements vor windows too. litestep.net for example is higly customizable. Only FVWM can beat it
but wats the matters of themes/customization of the GUI on a Server? Why use it in corparete installatons, so no fellow can help you, cause he uses a all different system?
Having the right to choose is not a right it's a bondage to choose.
And choosing takes much time
>Can you ssh into your windows machine?
Whats the Point in using SSH. You have another tool for this Problem. You can use the MMC to manage remote Systems. And yes it is possible to start services remote.
>Using Shell Scripts?
Why use Shell Scripts? Windows is different so do not try toi use the same things as on linux. Under Windows you have the Windows Scripting Host to do probably the same things as in linux.
I don't know why people always wan't to use the same procedures on different systems. It's like breathing in space without a space-suit.
Yes, I do use both systems
Most of UNIX's concepts are technically more consistent and logical than those of Windows.
..." and "tar -xvf ...". Plus you can build a program on one machine and then simply copy it to another one.
For example, because of the Windows registry you can't simply copy a program to a CD, then delete your harddisk, reinstall another version of Windows, and copy the program back to harddisk, because the program won't work anymore.
But you can do that on Unix. The concept of the Windows registry mixes all parts of the operating system, user applications, configuration files, etc. into one big datastructure. Windows even lacks any intelligent way of backing up and restoring a program and all its registry settings alltogether. That's one of the reasons why I still think, that Windows is a poorly designed operating system. On UNIX, a program is simply some files in the VFS tree. If the files are there, then you can run the program. Backup/restore is as simple as "tar -cvf
Another example is the concept of foreground and background processes on both platforms. Windows cannot run every process in background; processes need to implement special interfaces to run them at system startup, and you can only start and stop them by using the service control manager, you can't kill those processes.
On Unix, you can start any program at system startup as a background process. If that process won't stop anymore, you can kill it just like any other process.
That's what makes programming and using computers simple and logical.
Windows is probably more consistent in what the user sees (the look and feel of GUI widgets in different applications), because there is only ONE GUI subsystem, which is integrated into the operating system kernel.
However, comparing Windows with UNIX at the GUI level is somehow like comparing a banana with a tree. X11 is a (privileged) user space process running on UNIX, it's not an integral part of the operating system. Actually, the fact that X11 is simply just another user space process is a concept that adds some flexibility and also robustness to UNIX. If something in the GUI fails (the window manager, the desktop manager, the graphics device driver), you can simply kill and restart the entire GUI subsystem without rebooting; you can even install another graphics device driver without rebooting the OS.
Actually, sometimes when a window manager fails, I just kill the window manager and then reinsert it between the X client applications and the X server - even that works fine.
Anyway, X11 is not UNIX, it's just an application running on UNIX.
When you refer to the Windows security system, I assume you mean Access Control Lists.
No, I refer to the Windows security system. Which includes security contexts and priviliges (and elevation thereof), for example.
ACLs aren't unique to Windows. Linux started including them as an option a year or two ago.
Trusted solaris has had them for ages. There's nothing wrong with ACLs per se (although they tend to be so complex that ordinary human beings find them hard to understand).
The standard *NIX owner, group, world set of permissions is not sufficient in many environments. A finer degree of control is often needed. ACLs provide that degree of control.
ACLs are just a tool. You could do the same thing with ugo permissions and groups, but the things that would be trivial to do with ACLs would be hopelessly complicated to do with ugo - and to a certain extent that's true vice versa as well.
A SID is basically a globally unique user/group id. Some of the POSIX ACL implementations are already using SIDs.
SIDs are the spawn of the devil. They make any kind of migration hopelessly complicated. Not to mention that SIDs are stored in each and every ACL, that means on pretty much each single system object. If you've ever had to run newsid to upgrade a backup domain controller to a primary BC, you'd see it's not all that great. Why a PDC would be identified by its SID rather than, say, an easily backed-up digital certificate in a single location is beyond me.
Ever reinstalled windows and then copied the user database (excluding system accounts) from the old hard drive over to the new one, and then the files (which happen to wind up with the correct uids/gids)? I have with linux.
Having some sort of username@systemname convention for globally uniqe usernames (after all, SIDs are pretty long too, so why not go varchar) would be much better.
If you want to bash on Windows security, the access control model isn't the place to do it.
I was just saying they're different. Policies, now that's bashing territory, especially with AD groups (which aren't security groups) and all that jazz. Not to mention user priviliges and privilige elevation. Also, the UI for all the above just plain sucks.
There are issues in other areas but even the most recent POSIX efforts fall short of what NT4 provides in access control.
While that's true in some respects (and not true in others; NT4's default permissions sucked ass) it would be nice if people (and corporations) would actually use all those features, and use them correctly.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty