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.'"
Linux only looks like Windows(tm).
Linux only looks like Windows(tm), and then, only sometimes.
Seriously, Gnome is not Linux, KDE is not Linux. The ever-increasing familiar Linux desktop is not the actual operating system, mmmmkay?
There are dramatic differences in the underpinnings of both desktops. More striking is the philosophical difference. From http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html:Windows rarely does this.Now we don't have access to the Windows source, so we can't really say. But we can easily surmise the worst, given it's behavior.Not on any MS platform, at least not without using a protocol or other IPC/RPC devised by MS.No MS program manager has ever heard these words.Explains Windows. Perfectly.
There is only one program that has ever been written from scratch -- "Hello World.". Everything else is just cut and past from that.
Fight Spammers!
Here's your loop; run along now.
/L %I in (1,1,10) do @echo %I
for
Jon.
Mark Russinovich is a known pro-windows guy, whose views are for sure heavily biased. Kudos for him though, that he really knows his OS inside out - he is one of the guys behind Sysinternals, and I've more than once found their tools very helpful when dealing with problems of Windows boxes.
Despite his talk being biased, I think he got one important point mostly right:
But ultimately, said Russinovich, the gap between the two operating systems will continue to narrow to a point where their underlying kernel becomes irrelevant. "Layered services will become more important," he concluded.
On server space the kernel performance probably counts out more, but at least for most (not all, though) desktop users the kernel really isn't the most important part; it is the common APIs that do the trick. One could build two very similar boxes, one running Linux and the other FreeBSD - both running same apps, with differences hardly noticeable for the end user. Switch the BSD box to Mach kernel, keep userland, and still no much difference. But then just throw Apple's Quartz instead of X on top of that, and we suddenly have totally different world! This is just because we'll now suddenly have a totally different set of APIs.
However - what Russinovich left out - Windows will inevitably be the very last one to jump on this bandvagon, due to Microsoft's policies' closed nature and it's dominant position on the market. Windows just does not have to be compatible with other systems on the market the same way POSIX systems does have to - not at least from it's vendor's viewpoint.
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
You shouldn't be administering any server without the proper knowledge. Any system which crashes regularly has something wrong with it which is your problem to fix. Windows, BSD, Linux, or Palm: misconfiguation == doom.
I didn't mean that to be impugning your abilities, but consider it.
"My God, this must be a truly remarkable corn chip, to be so widely and confidently touted."
"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"
That is not correct. NT (and hence XP) was designed with the flexibility to support multiple OS Environments. One such option is the POSIX environment which is not a GUI.
So it is optional in both, albeit more optional with Linux because the Win32 environment is the default with XP.
I understand your point, but I will note that the free desktop customizers I've tried have not been stable, and I'm too cheap to plunk down money hoping that the non-free version is better.
Additionally, I assume you're referring to SFU or Cygwin when you say you can get real shells on Windows, and there the difference is obvious as soon as you try some filesystem access. Permission thunking between NTFS ACLs and Unix-style perms slows it all down quite a bit, and the funny mounting stuff isn't bulletproof.
My day to be pedantic, I guess.
"Nothing was broken, and it's been fixed." -- Jon Carroll
You dumb motherfscker, type that line verbatim in a command window in Windows and it runs just fine. I'm all about bashing Microsoft and Windows, but at least lets keep it real.
/L %I in (1,1,10) do @echo %I
C:\WINNT>for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
C:\WINNT>
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
Windows is more expensive to maintain as it requires more work, has been shown in some studies to be more difficult to use by beginners (gnome) and attracts less qualified IT staff. There? How does that grab ya?
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
While I agree with pretty much everything you said, I would have to take the other side on....
:(
"One cannot fault said business for doing exactly what every other business is also attempting to do."
Well, yes I can. Just like I can fault anyone I want because they are doing something I feel is wrong. That doesn't mean I can throw them in jail, or beat them up, or whatever. But it sure as heck means that I can "fault" them.
I think this is a typical attitude in the business world today. "As long as there is no law preventing me from doing something, or if I can at least get around or find a loophole in that law, then I might as well go ahead & do it." I don't have time to go off on a rant about why this is a bad attitude, but I personally think it is a major downfall of our society.
That's why I love Google so much. "Do no evil!" That's awesome. It doesn't say, "Do no evil, unless you find a loophole, or really think you can get away with it." There's something to be said for self-imposed morals & honor.
Of course, I still have two Windows boxes at home....
Unix is and never was a system designed to be used by everyday computer users. Windows from the ground up, was designed for just that purpose (although the instablity factor has hurt this aspect to some extent). Now, Apple's new OSX system has proved that this doesn't have to be the case. Meaning a good GUI can make all the difference. However, Apple's OS is a "closed" system (like Windows) and so it doesn't suffer from the "too many cooks in the kitchen" dilema Unix/Linux suffers from.
.NET). What does this all mean? The Ford F150 V8 truck is great for hauling heavy loads, but may not be convenient for mom to use to go to the supermarket when the less powerful but easier to handle 4-cylinder Ford Focus will do.
Honestly, who needs KDE, GNOME, fvwm, fvwm2, fvwm95, IceWm, Enlightenment, Window Maker, BlackBox, CDE... etc??? Too many choices creates too much havoc and not enough time developing ONE COMPLETE SYSTEM. Again, Apple got it right with just Aqua. Unfortunately, all of the above windowing systems (minus Aqua) never really shielded the user from the "raw" system and so the average folk are not going to waste their time learning a half completed GUI when Microsoft's GUI is so polished and mature. Microsoft's GUI is much more powerful in terms of speed, common dialogs, drag and drop, clipboard, ActiveX controls, cut and paste, fonts. Things everyday users take for granted and come to count on (even if they don't know these technologies by name). Unix's command line as we know is unbeatable. But again, most people don't want or need a command line!
The other problem is the lack of good "polished" software in Unix/Linux and (I feel) that is a direct result of poor (or rather outdated) development tools. Programs like gdb, ddd, vi, make and emacs aren't going to cut it anymore in the 21st century. Software is getting too complex and more and more difficult in design to be worrying about figuring out these ancient tools. New generation programmers just aren't attracted to them (and rightfully so) and find themselves crawling back to Visual Studio, which only boosts Microsoft's $$$ once again. Now, KDevelop is a neat tool and certainly is heading in the right direction, but lets face it, it needs tons more work to become anything near VS. Please understand, I love Linux and I'm no fan of Microsoft, but we need to just face the facts here.
So again, your comparing a "FREE" (very stable) system with a limited GUI (or rather GUIs) and limited (in terms of ease of use) development tools. Versus a (less stable) commercial system, with a fully polished GUI and excellent development tools (VB,
I'm *stunned* that I'm the first person to say even if the kernels are similar in the sense that they're monolithic, at least you can roll your own kernel and pull out all the drivers and garbage that you don't need or want. My FreeBSD box can boot in about 15 seconds to XFce (yah, not Linux but at least I can see the source and build from both); no chance XP would boot that fast after loading every driver in existence.
Dislaimer: I base this claim of being first on a content search for the words "build" and "roll" and though I did find one post implying it, I think it bears more attention.