Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux vs. Windows: What's The Difference?

Posted by timothy on from the parallels-maybe-but-come-on dept.

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.'"

26 of 1,219 comments (clear)

  1. An important difference by andyrut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's the difference? About $299.

    Or much more if you consider a server comparison.

    1. Re:An important difference by pbox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      # compilers! you can't program sh*t on a windows install without buying separate software.

      Unless you download mingw

      # your choice of how your desktop environment looks

      themes?

      # games, not just freecell and solitaire

      like gnubg, tux racer in cygwin?

      # real networking tools, such as nmap, a variety of firewalls, heck the list is too long to begin here

      Which almost without exception available for windows?

      # a powerful command prompt for expert users

      cygwin?

      --
      Code poet, espresso fiend, starter upper.
    2. Re:An important difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. Visual C++ (the compiler, not the IDE) is a free download.

      2. Themes and skins are available. And if you don't like them, you can download and install other shells.

      3. Plenty of games for Windows.

      4. Plenty of real networking tools available.

      5. Ok, the command prompt could definitely use some work.

      Of course, on 1, 2, 3, and 4, you might have to (gasp!) download something off of the Internet. They don't come with the OS. On the other hand, none of the above actually come with "Linux" either. They come with a distro, or as packages. While the available "Windows" distros may not quite suit your fancy, compared to Linux, it is just as easy (actually, easier in my experience) to get your Windows installation up to snuff. I can download and install a Windows utility more quickly than I can build and install a Linux package.

    3. Re:An important difference by the_mad_poster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you ignore windows ports of other GNU applications, you end up with linux having a great superiority over Windows

      Huh? You can't just ignore the GNU stuff just because it's on Windows. If you're going to do that, you might as well say that if you ignore the things that were ported from UNIX to Linux, UNIX has a huge advantage.

      Just because it doesn't come with Windows doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Technically, none of that other crap comes with Linux either. You just get your copy of Linux from a supplier that includes all those tools with it.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    4. Re:An important difference by damiangerous · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The part where saying, "I'm right, as long as you ignore the things that prove me wrong" became a valid method of debate.

    5. Re:An important difference by rattler14 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sadly, that's the attitude most people take in any arguement... trying to ignore anything that might shatter there theory/arguement, no matter how strong the evidence.

      --
      my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
    6. Re:An important difference by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      cygwin has a port of sshd

      I think it can be argued that Windows + cygwin != Windows.

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
    7. Re:An important difference by steeviant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bollocks, the problem people have with Microsoft's bundling practices is that they do the opposite of what Linux distributors do.

      Linux distributions come with several competing tools to do the same thing, this maximises choice for consumers.

      Microsoft bundle pieces of software made by Microsoft designed to be integrated with the system in a way that unrelated functions depend on said bundled app, making it impossible to remove. Consumers then run said bundled app because it is the only one supplied with the OS, and don't bother to look at competing products, minimising consumer choice.

    8. Re:An important difference by Storm · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Everything you listed is just a download away. I fail to see the problem.

      I see two problems. First, pretty much everything you mentioned involves a third-party "strap-on" items. This works fine for some things, but many apps suffer a fate that Windows either overrides them or just don't work quite right with them, causing random lockups of the machine or the app. Most times, there is nothing wrong with the app itself, since it runs under Unix/Linux/OSX/whatever (a perfect example is gnupg, which runs fine on Linux, but when I tried to run it on XP Pro, problems). Unix uses what may be considered third party apps, however, Unix (and Linux) were designed from the beginning as a collection of tools which do one or two things, and do them exceedingly well. These tools can be mixed and matched as needed to accomplish tasks. Therefore, plugging a tool in to a *nix box is absolutely natural. Windows, OTOH, was designed and built as a monolithic entity (some would say belligerently so). Adding third-party tools to Windows can be akin to strapping a JATO pod to a '65 Ford Fairlane.It doesn't make it an airplane, but it can sometimes make a mess.

      The second issue is security. I hear every day from Windows advocates that "Linux has as many or more security holes as Windows." This is a straw-man, since many Windows security problems of a higher level of risk than the average Linux one. If I have 10 rifles, I am still less of a risk than if you have one nuke. Either because of the difficulty in exploitation of the Linux holes, or because they are local-only exploits.

      Many Windows problems are a result of the "point and click" mindset. IE autoinstalling malware, Outlook auto-opening unknown attachments, and so forth, and being configured to behave this way. Can Linux be configured this way? Sure. Is it out of the box? Not generally. And this doesn't even begin to address the disparity in fix release time.

      Those are some of the problems I see.

      --
      --Storm
    9. Re:An important difference by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it can be argued that Windows + cygwin != Windows.

      Well, it isn't exactly Lindows either ;) I have used Cygwin for a long time, and while it is pretty handy, it will not compile everything and has serious limitations. I still love it and find it useful, but its not a substitute for a Linux environment. You can run sshd in Cygwin, but there are still some limitations. Also, I find that PUTTY is easier to ssh and sftp with, rather than cygwin's ports of ssh and sftp. The Perl windows port is a bit handier than Perl in Cygwin also, for local machine tasks.

      Cygwin is the next best thing to a Linux install, but it is far from being the same thing.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    10. Re:An important difference by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I have a theory: lowered barriers of entry. *nix has always been harder, requiring more work, less spoonfeeding, and more study to get good at. Every time I scratch my *nix itch I find more and more arcana under the surface. By contrast, Windows is infamously easy to set up and admin (a single box). The graphical tools and good integration (or lowered software choice) can make even a noob feel like an admin. The use of wizards makes more difficult tasks, like setting up a CA seem like they are easier. Windows does this to a lot of admin tasks, but it doesn't scale out to multiple machines very well.

      With all the companies cashing in on training we then get a flood of barely trained admins who fill up the workplace. Because there is a surplus of these Windows admins business' believe it is easier to get a good (subjective) Windows admin, rather than a rare, but usually considered more capable, *nix admin. This drives them more and more into Windows territory, since once they spike that first rush of Windows into their infrastructure, it's hard for them to stop, even when they realise they are causing themselves long term damage.

      We saw this effect with the release of VB, making any old Joe think he was a coder, and remember the flood of completely shit VB craplets that soon followed. It's this same principle, lowered barriers of entry lead to lowered quality.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
  2. A rushed list... by danielrm26 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    2. Philosophy. // 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

    3. Stability. // 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

    4. Cost. // nuff' said

    Those are just a few for starters...

    --
    dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
  3. Linux in general by LaserLyte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  4. Two things off the top of my head... by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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.
  5. Re:It's a vicious cycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  6. Re:The Difference by halowolf · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Don't worry just give it some time, the older the install gets, the more crud will end up in the registry and little by little it will start to run slower, and some day start doing some odd things...

    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!

  7. Ooh! Bad comparisons... by el-spectre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) You can't buy WinXP Home without the hardware for 90, so that's a bad comparison.

    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. ,maybe we can talk.

    --
    "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    1. Re:Ooh! Bad comparisons... by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Cost:

      Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition - Retail Price $199 (U.S.)

      Microsoft Windows XP Professional - Retail Price $299 (U.S.)

      RedHat WS Basic - Retail Price $179 (U.S.)

      RedHat WS Standard - Retail Price $179 (U.S.)

      Suse Personal - Retail Price $29 (U.S.)

      Suse Professional - Retail Price $89 (U.S.) And you can find many other distributions for various prices including free.

      Usability is really defined by what you intend to use the sytem for. As a common system, it is probably missing some of the functionality you would find on a MS Win32 system. For most of the common desktop functions, it has most of the features. Where Linuz is suffering is the massive vendor support that MS Win32 systems have. This will change as Linux gains acceptance (recall the days where applications only ran on UNIX systems and eventually vendors started to add MS Win32 support). Drivers also suffer a similar fate.

      As for the administrator cost, the TCO is debatable. The company I work for pays basically the same rates for administrators on either platform. This also applies to any of my previous employers (although skills with MS Exchange and Active Directory seem to demand higher prices than the equivilent skilled workers on UNIX systems).

      Mainly wanted to back up your post.

  8. I like what Mark Russinovich does... by sw155kn1f3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  9. Well, speaking on the article... by tux_deamon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "With Linux, you have messages transmitted which can degrade performance," he said, but conceded that this does make it easier to do remote applications. "With X-windows you can run windows for applications on a remote client. That is much more difficult in Microsoft Windows," he said.

    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.

  10. Re:Ooh! Selective comparison... by ScottGant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  11. Re:The Difference by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The difference is that one is unstable and easy to use while the other is stable and hard to use.

    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

  12. Re:Ooh! Selective comparison... by linuxelf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
  13. Re:Not entirely free if you're on dial-up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure, downloading Linux ISOs is much faster.

  14. preemptive kernel by sagei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

    --

    Robert Love

  15. Don't you guys see? by rd_syringe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    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 .NET technology and the level of community involvement the developers have shown. Thanks to the OSS community.