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
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
Actually, while I don't use Linux because it was free, I use it because I find it better.
But to address your "argument", Linux cost me zero...nothing...nada. Not one dime. Not $30 bucks, not 60, not 90 with a piece of hardware.
As far as usability and driver coverage, everything works fine here....but these are moot points really.
Linux runs fine, Windows runs fine. Some like Linux, some like Windows, some like other OS's. So what? I don't make my choices based on "the Market". The "Market" put things like "Titanic" as the highest grossing movie of all time, does that mean it's the best? We all know market share doesn't automatically mean better. Better comes from application on how it's used. XP is better for you, Linux is better for me...I'm sure there's someone who feels OS/2 is better for them. Who's right? We all are!
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
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
I've tries several differnet verision of Linux. What I've found is that I keep switching back to Windows to work with PSpice or Xilinx software, etc. For home users Linux really doesn't belong YET.
For most home users Linux doesn't do much. I'm sure web hosting companies use Linux, but most business do need special software, and they are almost always created to run on Windows. Ask any local Restaurant you go to.
And please, don't give me any bullshit about how I'm not smart enough to download or run Linux right.
I have to disagree. The majority of home users simply want web browsers, word processors, email clients and the like. All of these are available in a default install of any Linux client. It certainly isn't something that I can send my mom on CD and just say "Here it is, go at it." she wouldn't be able to install Windows on her own either. I have been using Linux as my home OS for 8 years or so, and have never had any reason to switch back. I do, however, keep a Windows box around to play games on. Windows is still the best platform for games, but for any serious use, I find Linux a much better fit.
- "That's just the kind of fuzzy-headed liberal thinking that leads to being eaten."
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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