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.
And it's gotten even worse with Mac OS 10.4 because now:
Linux copies Windows which copies Mac which copies Linux
(I'm sure SCO Unix gets copied in there somewhere too)
Uh oh... doesn't that sort of relationship end the universe in some sort of giant BLIP!?
Now, for those who want to actually read something that matters, Ars Technica has a primer on PCI-Express. Impress your friends, neighbors, and countrymen!
Casual Games/Downloads
The difference is that one is unstable and easy to use while the other is stable and hard to use.
The article is talking about the Linux KERNEL not the Gnu/Linux system. He's comparing the linux kernel and the windows kernel, and the difference betweent he two with regards to windowing systems is that Windows has windowing operations in the kernel, whereas Linus has it in unser space.
Just a little summary for people too impatient to read the article..
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.
...the problem with Windows is not the design, but the implementation. With all the employees and money Microsoft has, you'd expect them to come up with some useful ideas (Start menu, for one) that Linux would be worse off without using. Of course, you'd also expect them to be able to churn out decent code, but apparently not.
He's kinda right. I work with OpenOffice and Firefox for my basic stuff, and each time I launch those two or am in the middle of something, I have to look at the task bars to remind myself where I am at. User interfaces are so much alike.
The usual routine is pressing Win+E to launch Windows Explorer, then observe no Windows Explorer window launching, then cuss silently for the bug, then realize it's Red Hat 9 I am in.
A Unix-like OS is easily identified by the backspace key not working.
remember when 3.1.1 for workgroups came out? Microsoft only ripped off the whole windowing system from apple. So nothing is really 'original', except for maybe the dock in OSX
"Duke Nukem Forever" isn't out for windows yet.
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
When my X dies, it doesn't pull down the whole machine with it.
-- No Sig is a Good Sig
He says the only current difference is 'how windowing is handled.
This just illustrates that most people don't understand that the fundamental flaws with Windows exist under the hood.
Someone needs to write an article explaning those details in layman's terms.
Somebody needs to write an OS where the windowing operations are all done in the memory allocator. Wouldn't that be the more efficient way to go about it?
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
With Linux (or BSD), I'm not forced into running a GUI on a server. All services and subsystems are configurable via whatever text editor I find handy. Installing software (except perhaps kernels) doesn't require rebooting the system.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
Big difference and a main one that I'm not running Linux - installing apps. I don't know how to compile, nor do I think I should learn how in order to install simple programs. A "setup.exe" is needed. And it should add the appropriate shortcuts, in the startup menu, and if desired, on the desktop.
Call me a simpleton, but this is a major sore spot for me, and it's keeping me away.
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?
Since Linux and Windows were both designed to do the same job (be an OS) they are bound to be similar. This is especially true if people moved from one project to the other and brought ideas with them.
I wish to remain anomalous
hmm. I might respect myself more if I didn't react to the abstract before reading that article. damn.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Unless you bring Knoppix into the mix, in which case you're running a fully functional Linux distro, complete with KDE and OO.org, from a CD. I think it's sort of been done for Windows, but not nearly as completely. I agree with the main point though that they're rather different (to be understated.)
I'm always right and I can prove it, because to the best of my knowledge, I've never been wrong.
...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.
He says in the article: "Both kernels are monolithic". I thought the Windows kernel was monopolithic.
He says the only current difference is 'how windowing is handled.'
Then, of course, there is this issue of stability...
I wish Linux tasted like free beer. Now that would be something. Why doesn't somebody come up with an open source GPL'd free beer system?
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
...if they are so close to each other, with only windowing and security being the defining differences...then why are all those people still using Windows? And they called this guy a Fan of Microsoft...? I doubt MS would like to be viewed this close to LINUX, escpecially with one of the defining characteristics being security...because we all know how 'secure' windows is(n't).
Aw...well the article just stated what many of us have know for quite a while...
Sig? No thanks, I don't smoke.
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.
I don't know squat about kernels, but in general Windows seems to be becoming more like *nix and related packages.
- Swapping WINS for DNS
- New MSH (Microsoft Shell) being developed to give admins "Unix-like" access to system services and scripting.
- Longhorn interface resembles WindowMaker and other WMs
- WinFS going from drive names to "/"-based file system
Can anyone add to this list?
I heard this rumor while I was in high school about some guy that Microsoft locked in a closet and they made him write Windows NT. This rumor stayed in my head for years, until I interned with Intel in 2000. I asked the group (OS research) if they had ever heard of anything so crazy, and they said that basically, one guy did write the NT kernel - though a lot of it was borrowed from VMS. As to whether or not he was locked in a closet - I guess the world will never know! :)
Gotta get me one of these!
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.
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.
The article talks a lot about the two kernels, as is right. Linux is a kernel.
To sum it all up, you can see from the source that Linux uses lots of strategies both in and out of the kernel.
This is different from Windows, where you see ANYTHING from the source.
Ergo, Linux is different from Windows. The end.
This is a genuine question, not a suggestion that such applications don't exist. Often people ask if they can run their programs on linux, but 99% of the time "these programs" turn out to be Microsoft Office.
IMHO, armed with a knowledge of programming and a good (or bad) Linux distro you can mold it ultimately to your desires as a potter molds clay. Without said knowledge of programming, the difference can be superior speed of Linux and the slight incompatibility between OOo and Ximian and MS apps. But there are easy workaround to those. It's the cathedral vs. the bazzar.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Yes, and they mention that security stuff in TFA.
In the article he points out the differences between the two, highlighting where he thinks Windows Kernel lead the Linux one, but he forgets to mention where the Linux one leads Windows - especially in the areas of stability and security - I wonder why?
Also - he is mentioning the fact the windowing in the kernel suggesting that the only advantage of it not being is the ability for remote operations. My question would be is why do I need windowing features in a kernel that is being used as a server?
On a final note he seems to be recognizing that Linux competes with MS Windows at all levels, at the desktop as well as server. A mistake on his part?
Web Sig: Eddy Currents
I understand that the article is more comparing the kernel implementations. On that point, I actually like the way Windows does a lot of things better - a stable driver API, for one thing.
As for me actually using Windows, well, here's the thing. I don't really care about price (up to a point), nor do I care about source-availability (for most things). I would gladly use Windows if I could do this:
for FOO in `cat iplist` ; do echo "ppp-$FOO IN A $FOO" >> foo.zone ; done
I realize that I could just install cygwin or SFU, but that doesn't change the fact that Windows was not designed with shell-scripting in mind. I need that sort of functionality (I run GNOME because Fedora installs it, but I do 99% of my work (including file management) from a terminal).
(As for Microsoft's much-touted "you can do anything from the command-line in 2003!" thing - I don't consider "dhcp -f ScriptFile" to be elegant or useful. It's one-off and icky. I am interested in the "object shell" concept from Longhorn, though.)
(As another aside - look at StepTalk (http://www.gnustep.org/) - that's functionality I'd like the more mainstream *nix desktops to support...)
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
... If Linux is becoming more like Windows and their is very little diffrence between the two... Why should I pay for Windows?
I know they are only talking about the kernel but most people don't know what a kernel is. This is an excellent statement that could be used for FUD against Microsoft. However, I know we (OSS crowd) have to much dignity for that....
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.
Really. I'm serious. Hopefully in time for the July 4th festivities.
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
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,
What this sounds like is that the Windows team is stealing ideas from Linux.
Yes, I know you have software that absolutely must run on Windows. But the vast majority of popular computing tasks can be accomplished quite well on Linux.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
I understand that things like MySQL and PHP fill the void, but are there, for example, replacements for things like .NET (yeah, I've heard about Mono, but am more interested in a different approach, rather than an open-source approach to a Microsoft standard), or Enterprise Javabeans?
On the front-end, things seem pretty clear cut to me, but on the back-end, I haven't heard of any independent projects. Are there any open-source standards, or purely open-source implementations of what are effectively closed standards?
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!
The article seems to say that the linux kernel is becoming more and more like the windows kernel. Sure, similarities in design are bound to show up, especially since they're both monolithic, but are these similarities due to linux "copying" design concepts or is it more to do with the changing environment? People's want's and needs change and an OS will change with them and this means some features of an OS will look the same. It'd be daft for one or the other to say "no, we won't impliment this because a competitor has".
Yes, I'm sure this doesn't go for everything that's in both kernels but it's bad to assume that one is copying the other.
The article doesn't point out many differences apart from the way windowing is handled, but I'm also sure that many more differences exist than just this.
Silly rabbit
Simply saying that X handles windows differently isn't a very intelligent analysis. How about the freedom you have to choose whatever window manager you want? Or to not use X if you choose. I would also like to note that the fact that X works with TCP/IP is a feature I use daily (and not some minor detail).
And how many platforms does Windows run on? I'm not trying to bash M$ here, but point out that Linux is a lot more than just 'copying' features. I wouldn't suggest Linux for everyone, but wouldn't consider any other OS for what I do.
I am certainly glad Linus brought UNIX into the now, I was getting tired of reading all of my output on teletypes.
Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.
Honestly, this is one of the worst /. headlines I have seen. The headlinestory implies that the article discusses GNU/Linux systems and Windows systems where it only discusses both operating systems kernels. This is extremely bad since it is commonly understood that noone ever rtfa.
The last sentence implies the story is about "copyied" code.
Spoilers:
---------
It is not!
Maybe this was added just to spice the otherwise boring subject up at bit?
Please "editors", with a proper headline this could have been an interesting discussion. Now it's all offtopic. Thank you!
one of the creators of Digital's VMS Unix operating system
If the filter is totally clueless, how can we rely on it for our news. This unfortunately doesn't just apply to tech news.
Ah! You've been paying attention! I salute you!
This article isn't someone writing rah-rah about how great Windows is. (Or, for that matter, about how great Linux is). It also isn't about the appearence and philosophy of Linux vs. Windows. It is about the inner workings of the kernel, which I think is something that many hardcore users can't even claim to know that about.
As for the claim that the main difference is that Linux doesn't deal with windowing (or any graphical interface in the kernel), I think that the Linux kernel is not only indifferent to this, but to many other things. For example, Windows is designed with a certain file system in mind. As far as I recall, although Linux has a standard filesystem, the actual Kernel doesn't care whether a file is stored in a standard Linux file system, or is stored in a Minix, Amgiga or FAT-16 file system. Also, while there may be Windows for other processors, it is overwhelmingly designed for one architecture. Linux is relatively architecture independent.
So I guess I would say that while the man obviously knows what he is talking about, it is still true that Linux has a great deal more abstraction between the kernel, the shell and the applications, and not just in the fact that windowing is not a kernel specific task.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
If linux can beat windows in this arena. Windows would be history.
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.
Most of the time it's easier to install software for me than even having to track down a setup.exe off the internet. If I want to install via binary (what a windows exe file is) I simply type:
;)
pkg_add -r programname
and it downloads it, all the dependant programs, and installs them all automatically.
To install via source code, I simply go to the ports directory, which is organized by subject (net, devel, www, etc), then browse to the software folder I want to install and type:
make install
it compiles, does everything itself, you're done once it's done compiling the software works. That sounds a hell of a lot easier than tracking down software on the net and sorting through endless freeware junk. Hell it's easier than tracking down a CD in my CD-folder. Certainly easier than going to best buy and paying money for software
WINE is only a marginal success. Isn't it about time all the capable mo-fo arcane hacking super guru programmers out there get their asses in gear and volunteer some of their time to the WINE project for gawd's sakes? We REALLY CAN create a Windows-free Windows-compatible OS and GUI system if we really want to. And don't we really want to?!!! You know you want to.
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
...where you can install/compile and run a virtual kernel. Performance may be a factor.
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)
Well, I invented it, so now I have to live with my troll.
How hard is it to mount a iso image in linux? Easy. In windows? Ha! How about give me the raw image of a floppy? cp /dev/fd0 file. on windows? Ha!
Yes I know there are tools that will do all this stuff, but I'm talking about the basic interface.
And so on. The everything is a file phylisophy was the very first thing that was mentioned in the first book I read on unix. And it was listed as the biggest change from how windows works.
It means that if I want to, I have low level access to the devices on the machine. For example the serial port, or the sound card.
Another difference:
Have you ever tried deleting an open file on windows? Or renaming one? Big difference there too.
The fact that you can delete/overwrite etc open files on unix makes in-place no-reboot upgrades possible. Not a chance on windows. This is a HUGE!!! difference.
-Ariel
Verily the difference between the two becomes distinguished when power user casts his sacred Will upon the operating system. Linux obeys. Windows stays doomed.
There you are, staring at me again.
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 ...
but in both good and bad ways, arguably. For the better, Linux is getting more popular, more comprehensive, and more user-friendly. For the worse, it is more tempting for programmers to get "locked in" to Linux, either because of distribution-specific dependencies or GNU-specific dependencies. It is very important for programmers to remind themselves daily that there is more to the world than just Windows or Linux (such as Solaris, *BSD, Mac OS, etc.) and that POSIX exists for a very good reason.
-- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
Which will, in about the same amount of time and several less reboots as installing Windows, will install literally hundreds of applications as well. (Though I'd choose Slackware rather than RH.)
OK, no comment. Let us know about how that went next week. :-)
All software I need runs on windows... without the need for third party software to run it.
And all the software I need runs on Linux, without figuring out how to port it to Windows or installing third party software (e.g. Cygwin). That's because I use my computer for actual work, not video games and instant messaging.
The only time I ever need to use Windows is for giving presentations, because I haven't been able to get my laptop to play nice with video projectors.
How hard is it to mount a iso image in linux? Easy. In windows? Ha!
/dev/fd0 file. on windows? Ha!
How about give me the raw image of a floppy? cp
Yes I know there are tools that will do all this stuff, but I'm talking about the basic interface.
And so on. The everything is a file phylisophy was the very first thing that was mentioned in the first book I read on unix. And it was listed as the biggest change from how windows works.
It means that if I want to, I have low level access to the devices on the machine. For example the serial port, or the sound card.
Another difference:
Have you ever tried deleting an open file on windows? Or renaming one? Big difference there too.
The fact that you can delete/overwrite etc open files on unix makes in-place no-reboot upgrades possible. Not a chance on windows. This is a HUGE!!! difference.
-Ariel
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.
Hasn't ANYBODY learned anything? One does not create in isolation.
I don't see the point of this article. I mean, all it's saying is that the linux kernel is adding features that the MS kernel has had for a while, and only focuses on re-entrance and preemptivity. How does this matter? Why should we care?
Mark Russinov is the guy from wininternals who have some very cool utilities for windows - frequently mentioned in the microsoft knowledge base. If you're looking for windows utilities to show processes, logged on users, open file handles/mutexes etc., don't look no further.
/etc/ and ~/.somethingrc files can be quite daunting, but it's so much better than the registry in real life situations where things can go wrong and you want to edit stuff by hand or restore stuff, it's just not funny.
Having said that, the talk was about the kernel. Obviously the differences between a GNU/linux distribution and a Windows variant run very deep.
My pet peeve about windows is the registry. Sure, the staggering number of sometimes quite byzantine file formats of all those different
The biggest difference in the kernel would have to be security. Windows has a lot riding on their weird security system with it's SIDs and groups (which isn't enough to actually lock down your users, you need to use funky policies for that), whereas linux usually tries to get by with a simple uid/gid combination. Of course, if you'd want to, you could SELinux the kernel up beyond recognition, when it comes to security. (Try to do that on windows).
Also, printerdrivers don't run in Ring 0. They do on NT (and on windows 2000/XP as well, if you install old drivers. There's no warning or nothing. Yay.)
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
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!
Ok, lets do a honest and unbiased comparison, using the source code, to find the differences between Windows and Linux.
Here I have a copy of the source code for the Linux kernel. And here I have... um... hrm... wait a sec, where did I put...
so linux is a copy of windows which is a copy of the mac os which was a copy of Xerox PARC...
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
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.
You mean like what various *nix groups have been doing all along? Lets face it, any camp can be found guilty of having accused another company/organization/platform of stealing features. Remember last week's Dashboard/Konflabulator debacle?
from the FA:
... also, i generally don't have a problem with X windowing on linux, i'm taking his word for it that it's a performance hit. what are the implications of involving the kernel in windowing?
...
"Windows has kernel windowing. When it wants to perform a graphics operation, it does call into the kernel. In Linux, the application sends a message to the x-window process, which looks like any other process."
"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.
while Windows' windowing performance is admittedly snappy, it seems to me that having the kernel involved in windowing is a poor, overly-monolithic design choice
finally, i know OSX is a very different kernel, but does it also have windowing support? OSX seems pretty snappy as well
"With Linux, you have messages transmitted which can degrade performance,..." HAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAA!!! This whole article was written to try to degrade Linux and try to make Windows a leader. Nice try ZD!
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
(fingers in ears)
"la la la la la I can't hear yooooooou la la la la la la"
Linux doesn't copy the Blue Screen of Death.
That's one significant difference.
One lets you script any conceivable recovery procedure imaginable and the other makes you drive into the %$#@ office at 3AM to reboot.
More like Windows stole things from VMS, which isn't Unix, but is very Unix-like (although what monolithic-kernel operating system isn't at least something like Unix?). No, I don't think they blatantly copied code, but they had people who were involved with VMS (David Cutler) who probably borrowed a few ideas and concepts.
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
Linux does not
1) crash as often as M$ Windows
2) get owned as often as M$ Windows
If Linux wants to make any headway, programmers really ought to be striving for something better than accomplishing a task "quite well." Attention to detail, cohesiveness, and originality come to mind.
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Are you sure about that? An official windows XP advertisement from microsoft says 64 kilobytes! 256 kilobytes sounds too high.
Like duh, he was talking about the kernel. The kernel has nothing to do with any of those things.
Although i agree with you (The Linux names also mean nothing to me) that would just make people say "Oh look, Linux is copying Windows again!".
windows vs linux on slashdot? not fair.
Ok so I started reading the article and well I don't have any idea about the things he's talking about. Such as when he talks about how boxes in windows are called up by talking to the kernal where-as linux just calls xwindows or whatever - that shit goes over my head (obviously from my horrendous paraphrasing)
At first I thought he was going to talk abotu how a lot of the more mainstream distributions (by default) will boot into KDE/Gnome directly after install - both of which look a lot like windows - as in they have a start - oh I mean "begin" button that opens up a series of program shortcuts/links. Yeah i'm sure someone somewhere has made one that mimics OS X's toolbar, btu im talking about defaults here, whcih is what someone who is a windows user going to linux for the first time would probably be using.
In addition to that i've noticed linux getting way bloated (it might have even been mentione don slashdot before) Widnows with all it's included MS ware's fits on 1 cd, with Office Pro Fitting on one as well - so 2 cd's at minimum to install windows/office and be running. With the latest Redhat, Mandrake, or god forbid SUSE, I have about 987,645 CD's I have to switch out. I remember when I coudl go and find a copy of Redhat with Star Office that both fit together on 1 cd....now I need at least 4.
oh well just my observations I guess.
Ave Molech Setting
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
The difference between Linux and Windows is that my ethernet card configures properly under Windows.
I've tried Mandrake 10.0 SUSE 9.1... but none of them work. Typically, the whole computer freezes up if I plug in the cable. If I start with the cable plugged in, the computer won't even load. Infuriating!
I have no clue why this happens, but the hardware problems I've had with Linux, using cards they're supposed to support, is enough to turn me off to the system entirely despite my support for the underlying philosophy and my native dislike of M$
Apparently it works for other people, though.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
probably because you're dead and buried
I'm a chainsmokin' alcoholic sociopath, so-ci-o-path
Guys, you don't realize that the REAL difference is that there are so many antivirus for Windows, while Linux hardly has a few. Even free antivirus as clamav exists basically to protect Windows.
It's not hard to realize that Windows is much better protected than Linux.
That the difference guys, Linux is left alone in the jungle. Poors Linux zealot... no antivirus, unbelieveable.
sgis ddo ekil t'nod i
That Linux is more costly to support is a myth that is often repeated but not getting more true by repeating. In all the cases I have been involved with Linux has been much cheaper and much more easy to support. Where does this myth come from?
I think that Mark Russinovich has a skewed view of the Linux kernel. He says that the Linux kernel is closing the gap with the Windows kernel, but that statement is inherently biased. The Linux kernel is ahead of Windows in some areas and behind Windows in some areas; to make a blanket "it's behind, but catching up" is pretty shoddy.
More like, two scientists (in any field) working on the same problem at the same time, will come up with similiar solutions. The situation has been well known in mathematics for over a thousand years now- little wonder it would show up in mathematics-heavy programming as well.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
linux-windows=lux
windows-linux=wodows
Sorry, I thought you wanted the set difference.
/^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
Hmm... looks like Windows is trying to be like *nix. Whod'a thunk it.
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925
You could say the same thing about packages in linux. Little programs requiring these obscure packages mucks up the system too. I think this is a little trollish for you to say that just because windows isn't bad now it will be because it's microsoft. I've had more segfaults than windows crashed and I've been running linux for a month. All the anti-microsoft trolls have to realize that windows xp kept up to date and firewalled is pretty damn stable. I really think the only problem with windows is how easy it is to install software (spyware) on it.
Even though I use linux now exclusively at home, I don't see too many benefits. I honestly use it because I'm bored and I like to tinker around. If I wasn't into computers or felt linux experience would be good for a career, I wouldn't do it.
It's my experience that when someone says "nuff said," they've admitted they can't actually back up their argument.
In this case, it comes down to total cost of ownership. While I'll grant you Microsoft's server ads are bunk (I make sure to click them to feed Slashdot $$$), I'm less convinced it really costs that much less on the desktop. After all, even at the low rate of $10/hour, $185 is only 18.5 hours. Is there an 18.5 hour difference between setting up XP Home and a Linux desktop distro? What is the current Linux desktop experience like with respect to file install, drive setup, and basic accessories?
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.
Installing software (except perhaps kernels) doesn't require rebooting the system.
And neither does it require a reboot under XP generally. In fact, most patches/updates haven't required reboots for quite a while either.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
http://www.store.yahoo.com/glob2000/frshmiwixppr.h tml
Do a search on www.pricewatch.com... On the flip side of the coin, current server products (full versions) start at at least $300 or more...
http://www.store.yahoo.com/glob2000/frshmiwi20se1. html
Granted Linux does both client and server stuff, so it's still cheaper, but you can still get it legally for a lot cheaper than the retail stores (Fry's Electronics, Best Buy, etc.) charge you.
It's not exactly free; users of Windows 98 or ME must upgrade to Windows 2000 or Windows XP and possibly replace some peripherals that don't have proper WDM drivers.
Even then, it's not entirely free; dial-up users have to either commit to 12 months of MSN broadband for $360 or order a few CDs: Windows service packs, .NET Framework SDK and Redistributable, and the optimizing compiler included with VC++ Toolkit 2003.
Is 91.5%. MS has 93.8% market share and Linux has 2.3% market share. And coming from a business perspective that is the only difference that matters.
#> for ((i=1;i<10;i++): do echo $i; done;
okay do that simple doodle loop on windows shell.
Try this:
Then try cmd /? and help for from the Windows 2000 or Windows XP command prompt.
So who's copying whom?
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
Kinda hard to do that if you don't have a computer with an OS on it yet.
The cake is a pie
Conceptually similar, yes. However the implementation of some concepts can vary greatly between platforms. The more high-level the talk is, the more similar the two systems appear to be. For example, I can say "They are both operating systems and perform the same types of services for the user". That's true, however the proof is in the pudding. Obviously Linux is a good server pudding and Windows is a good desktop pudding. I'm interesting in seeing the best quality product being produced on top of the those concepts. Likewise it can be argued that Windows is trying to be like Linux, and therefore the need for Windows is diminishing!
For me, it had little to do with the politics and ethos of the open source movement.
... What though ? BSD and a window manager? Maybe when AROS is more mature... It is the unix underpinnings that make linux what it is; and it is that same reason that OSX has changed the image of Mac's into one of been accepted by geeks; OS9 and earlier had little cred amongst geeks.
...
I switched because I couldnt stand windows; I hated the Crashes, the BSOD's the constant hand holding, the "doing things without asking", and the god forsaken registry file, I could never figure out why you coudlnt do anything else while formatting a disk (this maybe different now; but this will only show how long i have avoided using windows!)
See I was an Amiga user for many die-hard years before giving in and getting a PC and windows. I hated it from day one, but I used it because I had no other choice. The Amiga always did many things better; mulitasking, formatting a disk; its shell and scripting capabilities. And many other things. Knowing AmigaOS had a certain heritage or design philosphy in Unix ; When the opportunity came to try Linux and be free of Windows I took it and within only a short period of time i'd dumped windows completely. Linux is more flexible, and configurable and understandable (from a technical/devloper perspective) than windows ever was for me; The only one thing that I could say the Amiga did better than both Windows and Linux is multitasking. That said Linux is still better than windows in this and other respects.
Linux; is actually just a kernel, the way you use the system can be any way you want it. There may be a general concensus that certain desktops take a few ideas from other desktops but in the end we are all pinching idea's of each other. Linux windowing managers have the advantage that they can be configured to look and behave like whichever desktop takes your fancy. Just look at the look'n'feel sites to see how many linux desktops are more like OSX than Windows. That is the degree of control that we have that Windows does not.
For me, its a non-issue; My linux box doesnt feel like a Microsoft monster; And the similarites are hardly evident to me. The moment Linux feels like a Microsoft operating system is the day that I format my hard drive and try something else
I suppose that is all i have to say; Linux is just a kernel that bares little resemblance to windows; it is the tools that run atop it that make the difference.
Nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Linux is really neither, since it's a kernel, the OS part is decided by the distribution makers.
and in the kernel, the desktop part is an option, linux can be used for more than just an OS, it can be used to control devices and hardware, and many other things. bash, X11, and all that crap is just an option, hence why linux will always have the upper hand, because it can power a desktop OR server OS
bsd is an os, and windows is an os, linux itself, its entity is a kernel, that can power a lot of things.
Origins. Not neccessarily most recent versions, but the origins were certainly in Unix of the 1970s and VMS of the 1970s. Otherwise we wouldn't still be using ls and dir, now would we?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Yeah, quite a difference. I mean, it's not like you can run Firefox or Thunderbird or OpenOffice or Bash or Gaim or Gimp or Eclipse or any other of the fine free software out there runs on Windows.
Oh...wait...those all run on Windows.
Unless you're a gamer, it is easy to find all the free software you'd need for Windows.
The article is talking about kernels...but it's true of the look-and-feel as well. I run almost entirely the same software sweet on Windows that I run on Linux. Other than the games available only on Windows, the only significat differences are Winamp instead of XMMS and Visual Studio, which I'm required to use for work.
One of the nice things about free software is that despite what a lot of people think, it isn't a Linux movement. It's a software movement. So while it is hard to find Windows apps that have been ported to Linux, many free software projects support Windows and Linux.
Choice, the best part of free software.
The cake is a pie
I installed SuSE 8.2 with X-Windows and FVWM on a NCR retail terminal with a 333 Mhz AMD processor and 16 Meg of RAM and it ran just fine. Mozilla was a tad slow, but our X-based point-of-sale app handled it just fine.
Unknown host pong.
Considering that they share source code. Windows NT was based on OS/2 1.0, which was coauthored by Microsoft.
The cake is a pie
This isn't whining .. I really want a rock solid Linux laptop supported by an interesting set of manufacturers with simple updating and configuring. And I really like the fact that many things I do are actually a bit better supported on Linux. But I'm just not willing to spend most of my time fussing with the computer rather than computing!
So is IBM up to this yet? Dell? Toshiba? *ANYBODY*?
Linux is multi-user, Windows is not.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE!!
Linux works.
But seriously, comparing Linux to Windows is like apples to oranges...
My point being, suddenly Microsoft seems to have outsourced their FUD to Europe? Ok, I know AdTI is in the United States, but still- this is getting a bit coincidental.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The guy in the article was discussing both Linux and Windows kernels and how one difference is that Windows handles windowing in the kernel. Go back and ReRTFA.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
"Windows, said Russinovich, owes a great deal to a project led by David Cutler, one of the creators of Digital's VMS Unix operating system, to port Windows to what was then Digital's 64-bit Alpha processor. While at Digital, Cutler, who now works on 64-bit Windows, also worked on a project to port VMS to the Intel IA-32 platform."
Umm... VMS is not a UNIX operating system. They're very different.
One thing they do have right, though... NT has a lot in common with VMS. I've heard through the grapevine that some of the original VMS code comments also existed in NT4 source.
the kernel is still quite different from Windows.
/-tree.
On top of that, I'm not so much concerned with the kernel as a I am the usability of the Operating System. As long as the kernel executes and triggers what I tell it to, I could care less if it's the Windows kernel or Linux or what-have-you. Give me my bash, give me my
Windows costs a lot.
Linux is worth a lot.
My faith is expressed through Nihilism. Do you understand?
Security is my number one priority. I recently bought a new laptop with Windows XP and a security firewall. No sooner had I connected my PC to the cable modem, then various security alert windows starting popping up (WIN_DCOM, WIN_LSASS) at least one every 5 minutes.
I filed a complaint to the cable TV company. The alert windows have stopped popping up, but since I never received any feedback from the cable company, I don't know if they have quarantined off the errant PC's or whether my PC has been compromised.
Asa result I'm switching over to Linux.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
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.
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. "Layered services will become more important," he concluded.
/rant and thanks for your time.
I long for the day that my portage packages are as easy to install as worms are for Windows. They are close, but Windows has worms that are almost intuitive, they get installed, 'ultimately', even before I know I want them.
Yes Russinovich, there is a difference, and there are some sevices that Windows would be better off without. But you wont be mentioning them any time soon will you?
Its only irreleveant for so long you continue to consider the customer needs irrelevant.
Ok,
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
It's talking about the kernel, not the GUI. But they're still not correct. The two differ dramatically in their methods of IPC, process spawning, etc. About the only correct point made is that they have similar ancestors, and even that is suspect -- VMS is not UNIX, they differ again by things like IPC, etc -- some of the same differences between Windows and Linux. This article is a TROLL!
Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn
isn't that what MS labelled linux?
If Linux is like Windows, it's because Windows is like Mac OS.
Hey! Maybe Microsoft owes Apple royalties after all?
The true *nix geek knows that most important and sublime of recovery sequences:
tput rmacsstty sane
After a noise burst or crash these two commands (bracketed by their line-feeds on all sides) both make the input system usable again (the "stty sane") and turn off the "alternate character set" attribute in your text window(the "tput rmacs").
Lots of people know the stty, but only the leet old-timers know the joy of tput.
8-)
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
With Linux (or BSD), I'm not forced into running a GUI on a server.
Not a kernel issue. Kernel handles windowing, sure, but whether or not it has a GUI is not a kernel issue.
All services and subsystems are configurable via whatever text editor I find handy.
Not a kernel issue
Installing software (except perhaps kernels) doesn't require rebooting the system.
Not a kernel issue...
Sometimes I wish I could climb into the head of a moderator and pry loose an explination. The first moderator out of the shoot decided that the above was a troll...
/sigh...
It is an observation on the modern tendency to mistake form for function.
It was neither pejorative nor slanted. I didn't assign favorable status to one over the other in my car analogy. The moderator seems to think that one of these cars is good and the other bad, but I deleberately chose the (generic) electric town car (which apeals to the "green" among us) and the Turbo Mini (which appeals to the speed and flash among us.)
Both cars are cars I would like to own while both are small, light, and so forth.
How, exactly, was that a "-1 Troll"?
Is this yet another example of the waning intellectual rigor which abounds around us?
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
date /t & time /t
If you use Windowmaker, you can set up all the hot keys you want. Right now I have Mozilla set up to launch with Win+M. It's a good window manager, try it.
-Andrew
Qxe4
"Oh yeah?! Well my OS can beat up your OS in its SLEEP(mode)!"
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...
Here's a recent example of why I like linux better: For some reason, my internet stopped working on my windows partition, but it works completely fine on my linux one... Not knowing too much about how windows works, it took me like a week to figure out how to properly edit the registry so that it will automatically configure my IP... Linux just didn't care, it notices a connection, and just does what I wanted it to... Windows just wouldn't let me do what I wanted it to... Arg!
-Magiluke
Earl Grey, Hot.
At last, someone who understands what I was trying to say. I didn't mean to make a big deal out of it, there is no problem; I was just stating that Linux is not focused on a particular "market", as BSD and Windows (arguably) are.
And the difference between a diesel and a 4-stroke gasoline engine is the drive linkage.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Uh it goes both ways methinks.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
Why would I need to? In 2000/XP/2003 I just use the %DATE% variable, or the %TIME% variable, which are hidden environment variables built into the shell.
Linux still needs a blue screen of death....
And neither does it require a reboot under XP generally. In fact, most patches/updates haven't required reboots for quite a while either.
Hehe, they may not require a reboot but without rebooting the patch doesn't take effect. Several nessus scans can confirm this.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
I don't understand the Windows kernel API talk? OS/2 had license access to Win 3.1 source and could run 16 bit apps but that doesn't mean it _was_ a Windows variant. I think it was more analogous to linux running Windows programs with WINE.
Well, of course, there are a couple discussions going on here -- the GUI and the underlying OS.
OS/2 Warp hit the stores nearly a year before Win 95 and the Win 95 GUI was a pale and weakened creature to the beauty of OS/2. In the analogies of the time, if linux was a jeep and Windows was an MG, I always thought of OS/2 as a pimped up Caddy will all the options. Put a strain on the engine but it was a joy to drive.
I'm aware of the official VMS line. It seems difficult to believe that IBM taught Microsoft nothing about 32-bit preemptive multitasking, but it is also clear that there was fresh thinking in areas like NTFS. I'm sure there are honest web archives somewhere thoughtfully demonstrating that NT was superior to OS/2 in most** areas.
But OS/2 was superior to Windows 95.
** I would dual boot both OS/2 and (rarely) NT. I could play 16-24k streams while simultaneously cruising at home on a modem with OS/2 -- Never a hiccup. Preemptive load balancing? NT? Not the same pleasant experience. (And OS/2 had some USB drivers.)
You can't run a lot of windows apps on linux.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
for /F "delims=" %a in ('date /t') do set today=%a
Of course, in reality you just use the %DATE% pseudo environment variable instead of the rather sledgehammer-like effort above.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Damned simple to download and install.. I dont even have to worry about where it comes from..
Course 'make install' from ports does the same thing, but requres more typing...
Oh, that was bad land... well.. 'apt-get' does the same sort of thing.. just to be fair...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Freedom!
No regular expressions as such, it's all built into the command interpreter to do that though.
e.g echo %DATE% will return Fri 02/07/2004 (today anyway). If you only want the year then you do echo %DATE:~-4% (last four characters of the variable). If you want the day part only, you do echo %DATE:~4,2%. (two characters, starting at the fourth if you count from zero)
There's some quite flexible stuff built into cmd.exe if you're willing to look - some excellent for loops which are my favourite.
Sorry, Windows is based on code stolen from VMS (Digital Equipment Corp), with WNT one letter different from VMS.
How do I know, I was there when DEC wouldn't pay the VMS developers any more money and they went "somewhere" else with DEC's IP inside their heads.
`find / -name "*your_base*" -exec chown us:us {} \;`
Personally, I'm getting sick of these "Windows vs. Linux" articles. I use open source software.....I could care less about Microsoft products.
I worked on the OS/2 printer drivers and the driver model from OS/2 was used by NT.
Fight Spammers!
Windows is spelled W-I-N-D-O-W-S ;-)
Linux is spelled R-O-L-A-I-D-S
Which would you rather have for relief from your computer woes?!?
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
Yes, yes it does.
Even more so sense I embedded it into my vaccume cleaner.
While I certainely agree that Gnome and KDE become more and more Windows like everyday, linux is not gnome, and linux is not kde. They are separate entities, which is why windows is nothing like linux in one major regard: choice.
You have a choice with regards to your computer. If you wish to run windows, so be it, but you will adhere to a fairly ridged methodology. With Linux, you can choose to run gnome, or you can choose to not run one of the popular desktop envrioments, or even have a windowing system at all. If you choose, your linux system will have only software that you want on it, and will behave as you desire.
Yes you can run gnome, and have a very windows like system. I choose not to run gnome, because I left windows to get away from bloated software, which gnome and kde are. I run AfterStep, on a very trimmed down linux system, with only the tools I need. My system is not very windows like at all. I run linux because it gives me that choice.
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
And you can *still* to this day, use echo. (echo followed by a period, without a space in between) to get a line feed. That's one I hear people say you can't do, and they're always very surprised (of all things).
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
What a lot of bullcrap.
Who gives a doo-doo if both are monolithic. The world has yet to see a working and usefull modular OS that fits the theory model.
Windows isn't documented and open, you can't compile it yourself, therefore it's a GUI-Kernel chunckthat can't be seperated. You can't even get a server Windows without a GUI. The MS Shell is a bad joke and the whole OS has crappiness built into it so they have something to fix in the next release. In fact the whole point of windows is building a software that has the capability of becoming obsolete when the need arives.
Linux, on the other hand, has a completely different goal: technical excellence from the get go. x86 crappines aside - which actually does make Linux and Windows somewhat simular - they both are as far apart as operating systems and working enviroments can be. Except maybe for KDE aping windows crappines in usability in the default setup. That's a differen't story. I'll give them that.
The rest is plain and utter bull.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Grandpa's point is that the previous poster was being a pedantic fucktard while pretending not to know what X-Windows is.
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.
The difference? Easy: When I am using Windows I feel constrained, limited and frustrated. When I am using Linux I feel as though I can do things *I* want to, my freedom is limited only by my imagination.
:-)
Sure, that is mostly down to perception, but sometimes perception is everything
"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.
Not to mention that Linux actually works, is reliable, and doesn't have the same bugs that didn't get fixed three versions ago.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Try installing and using Slackware, or one of the other distros sure to be mentioned.
I've used both Slackware and Redhat. I also hate RPMs.
I tend to use Slackware on serverish boxes, and Redhat on workstationish boxes. Not that you couldn't get most of the software present on either running on the other, but I'm Lazy. (and Impatient, and all that)
Yow! I'm supposed to have a plan?
Though they've taken out 'cd..' since now you have to do it properly with a space character 'cd ..'.
my mind still forgets that if I'm working fast and need to go up a directory.
heh, of course DIRectory is not case sensitive, and is actually mnemonic...
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
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..
while (!asleep()) sheep++
Anyone out there writing cross-platform documentation ever run into this little ditty?:
In Windows, you LOGON to the system.
In Linux (and every other flavor of Unix I'm familliar with) you LOGIN to the system.
(I just noticed this a few days ago - I'm wondering about Novell and OS/2 - - anyone know?)
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
You're wrong. If that isn't a sheeyite programming language, I don't know what is.
On a more serious note, all that you've listed is but a download away, plus trhere are convenient ISOs available of some things.
The real advantages for Linux lie in several areas:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
but they're also wrong. It is called X-Windows, and it has been called X-Windows since the very earliest implementation. "X" is too short to be meaningful, and "X Windowing System" is too much of a mouthful.
I do wish they'd get over it.
Politas
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
How about:
Linux supports more processors.
Linux has sysfs and procfs
Linux drivers are more flexable that windows drivers.
You can run a kernel in a kernel under linux
You can chroot under linux
The majority of linux configuration is in human readable format.
If linux API documenation is missing or odd I can look at the source code to figure out whats going on.
Windows has:
ActiveX (OLE), Good media handeling for things like video, Resources packed with the executables.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Yes, there is a version of VC++ which is free.
~Aha~
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Still works for me under Windows XP SP1 & SP2, Windows 2000 SP3 & Windows 2003. I just reflexively type a space anyway, but it certainly still seems to work. What version are you using?
You're new here, aren't you? (-: G/D/R
Remember the tale from way back, ohh... let me see now... maybe four days? The one of the bloke who reliably couldn't get MS-Windows-XP updates through his DSL link fast enough to avoid being cracked straight off the Internet?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Or to use less mucking about, this:
set TODAY=%DATE:~-10% %TIME%
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.
Actually you're right - just checked again.
I know unix doesn't use it, maybe that's what I was thinking - I only have to use our linus system here occasionally, I just keeps going.
I have not been able to figure out how to do this in DOS, but it seems like if anyone is ever going to know you would - how can I replicate the following kind of command:
/somedir/*.jar`
for i in `ls
do
CLASSPATH="${i};${CLASSPATH}
done
I have never figured out a way to loop on a particular list of files in DOS.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Go to a meeting of your local Linux User Group Someone will burn you a distro (or at least a copy of Knoppix, which is enough to get you downloading) for free.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
"Any system which crashes regularly has something wrong with it which is your problem to fix."
k b; EN-US;258282
k b; [LN];Q300917
5 09 34.aspx
Are you familiar with these things known as "service packs" that Microsoft issues on occasion?
Do you know that sometimes Microsoft fixes things called "memory leaks" in these "service packs"?
So it is NOT possible to me to fix all the problems that cause a server to crash.
Unless by "fix" you mean "reboot on a regular schedule". Don't believe me? Here are some examples.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=
http://www.dotnet247.com/247reference/msgs/50/2
Just do a google search on windows 2000 "memory leak" "service pack" and you'll see how very wrong you are.
Operating systems have bugs. Deal with it.
Get GoBack off NOW! Turn in your badge and go home. Bad, bad admin...
Good Lord...I am getting too old for this shit.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
of course you either haven't used Linux for long
or you are thick
or both.
Have a thousand words. That was Mandrake 9.2 a few months ago, no extra software besides the app.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Does anyone else find it delightfully ironic that Slashdot shows "Microsoft Windows Server outperforms Linux" ads in the article?
Frink: Nice try floyd, but you were designed for scrubbing, and scrubbing is what you shall do.
His argument does not show Linux converging to Windows anymore than it show Windows converging to Linux.
Windows is catching up on stability and Linux is catching up on ease of use.
I'd go further and say there is currently no meaningful gap between the platforms in stability and usability. Granted Linux might degrade a bit more gracefully under pressure, but since Win2K I've seen perhaps only one blue screen of death in several years of intense use. It's hardly a slam dunk in Linux's favor like it was in the NT 4 days, and most users will not ever see a stability advantage by going with Linux.
On the other hand, I'm dual booting my laptop these days between Win2K and Mandrake 10, and use FireFox/Thunderbird and Open Office on both. Guess what -- there's no magic usability fairy dust in Windows that makes these excellent applications any more excellent on Windows than they are on KDE. Windows gets a bit of an edge because the Microsoft fonts are still better than anything I've seen on Linux, especially for us middle aged folks who are getting a bit nearsighted.
The real differeince in user experience between free and proprietary software is that proprietary software is almost always used as a marketing opportunity. It started with Microsoft littering everyone's desktop with links to MSN. They'dve loved to have foisted smarttags off on anyone so they can get their marketing claws into everyones' web pages and internal documents. Proprietary media players want to sign you up with their associated fee based services. Given a mass enough market piece of software, sooner or later a feature will be put in to distract you from what you want to do and move you toward what they want you to do. You may at times be exasperated by design oversights in F/OSS user interfaces, but you never feel badgered.
The curious thing is that people have this thing about F/OSS having an agenda. From a day to day use standpoint, it doesn't have nearly tbe agenda that proprietary software does.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
...who think that just because something works for them will also work the best for someone else.
I just switched over to linux (not entirely, but my linux partition is bigger than my windows partition now), and it is very similar to Windows. Why did I switch then? I'm still not real familiar with Unix operating systmes, though I feel like Linux will help me feel more in touch with my computer once I learn. But Windows is certainly easier, when I download gaim for windows I don't have search the web for all sorts of dependencies to allow it to run. Linux isn't easier to use than Windows or OS X and it's not better for the average user, yet. But the biggest problem I see is a lack of innovation, it needs to be something different than Windows, it needs it's own killer app, it's own unique feature (while I understand it has many, it doesn't have many that appeal to the average user). Despite these complaints, I use Linux because I like the idea of open source, and I think it has the potential to be better than Mac OS X and Windows, because thousands of people are working to make this product more secure and better everyday.
While X is better for displaying graphics, developers find D3D easier than OpenGL to implement games. Microsoft does all the graphics library gruntwork for the developer, and the end products run fine on the OS that the vast majority of potential cusomers run. For developers, it's win-win. As such Linux gets screwed when developers choose to go D3D only.
$ whatis themeaningoflife
themeaningoflife: not found
... which is a ripoff from Xerox?
Mak'tal shree lok'tak mek'ta sa'tak Oz! - Daniel Jackson
I use Windows all the time and have played around with Linux a little here and there. I have used it to know for a fact that there is nothing about Linux that is like Windows unless of course you count the fact that they both use a GUI for users to use the OS a little easier. But even then the two are really different in feel and useage. Oh wait, Isn't Linux more stable the Windows too? Yeah thats right. I use Windows and I bash it. So what of it. It's my right.
Security was also another area where there significant differences remain between the two operating systems.
Notice he doesn't actually say WHICH is the better?
Something tells me we're looking at another Alexis de Tocqueville here.
As soon as I see the word 'Linux' anywhere in a non-IT news article I tend to go grab a bucket of popcorn and enjoy the sounds of my own laughter.
Homonyms are fun!
You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
They have?
C:\WINDOWS>ver
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
C:\WINDOWS>cd..
C:\>
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
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.
I have an m6805 laptop. The wireless card is unusable, as is the ACPI, in Gentoo, SUSE, Mandrake, Fedora, Debian, Slackware, and Knoppix. My laptop is six months old.
I have a desktop AMD64 machine with a netgear wireless card in it. Gentoo doesn't work. The SUSE LiveCD works, but I'd rather not fork out $30 for the personal edition, and the network install is a hassle. Mandrake 10 for the X86-64 isn't available unless I'm in the club, which is only $100 a year. Debian doesn't work. Nor does Knoppix.
So, the reason I don't use Linux is because it doesn't work. At least, for the machines I own. Is that a good enough reason?
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.
Since when do you, an arbitrary nobody, get to tell the authors what they historically named their product/package?
You and the rest of the world (myself included) might consistently use the incorrect colloquial name, but the authors are not wrong. Everyone else is.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
... ,considering the majority of the world doesn't use Linux, they would like to assure all those considering a switch to gain all of the almight power of linux that their is nothing Linux does that they can't do either. Even if it is through another $2000 in software purchases.
You guys sit here and bitch with one another extolling the virtues of Linux and your precious ssh and shell scripts and Joe Nobody is sitting on his fat ass saying "Wtf is SSH? I just want to play me some Solitare and look at porn."
Linux is paying catch-up with Windows and the gap is narrowing.
What crap. If you asked me, I'd tell you that Linux has clearly superior feature set, organization and portability. It runs cleaner and better on more hardware than Bill Gates can dream of. Who would argue otherwise?
"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.
A kind admission of borrowing on M$'s part that sounds very similar to SCO "theft" FUD. I was not aware that Microsoft's kernels had UIDs, SMP or file system integrated permmision systems. But hey, it runs your computer so it must be the same, right? Surely, there are some details our reporter has left out.
No, I'm afraid not, the reporter goes on to accuse Linux of stealing Minux and blither some BS about how integrating a GUI into your kernel is good for performance. Nuts, the reporter has clearly seized onto something out of context and crammed it into some SCO generated fantasy world of "stolen" software.
Don't blame the summary, blame the article for clear famebait. No real engineer would say such things.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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
You can't even fucking spell.
1. Purchase operating system from poor schmuck that doesn't know any better.
2. Purchase/Steal ideas from competent competitors.
3. Establish monopoly.
4. Accuse competitors of always trying to "copy" you.
>If you ignore windows ports of other GNU applications, you end up with linux having a great superiority over Windows
And if you ignore even more than just that, then both operating systems are the same, which was exactly the point of the guy quoted in this news.
# compilers! you can't program sh*t on a windows install without buying separate software.
Most people don't program anything (I do some simple Perl and shell scripting which work fine on Windows) and I use servers in production, not for development
# your choice of how your desktop environment looks
Thanks I don't have time for staring in my desktop and fscking with settings. Monocolor green is just fine.
# games, not just freecell and solitaire
Games? Are you still in kindergarten?
I bought CS, though, great value!
# real networking tools, such as nmap, a variety of firewalls, heck the list is too long to begin here
A variety of firewalls... That's just great!
There are several decent free firewalls for Windows (except the one included in OS!).
# a powerful command prompt for expert users
Oh, and let me guess that expert gamer slash user is you?
--
My point of course is that these arguments are nonsense and the same is true for similar pro-Windows arguments - who cares, people should use use whatever they want and shouldn't switch because of 5 lame arguments from a forum like this.
There are a couple of good tools out there that will make most cards work, albeit in a gimpy Windows-esque fashion, without a few advanced features.
Linuxant and Ndiswrapper
It's still better to have actual linux drivers, but these probrams make it possible to use the Windows drivers in many circumstances (You have to pay for Linuxant, and Ndiswrapper works damn near perfectly as far as I can tell, so I recommend it.)
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
...anything which thinks it can pretend you've got a UP box is generally at fault. It also helps if your system is ACPI based, or SMP, for responsiveness when things go apeshit.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
...for installing a THIRD PARTY crap-tool from Roxio to replace a feature that ALREADY COMES WITH SERVER 2003. It's called "Restore Points". Learn how to use them. Better yet, learn about the Volume Shadow facilities, and how to use proper tools that take advantage of it (at least NTBackup.exe for gods sake). And ditch that shovelware.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
C: - for files relating to marine matters
D: - deleted files
E: - echos of files used previously
N: - obviously a network drive
Or there are the subdirectories:
C:\Progra~1\Adobe~3\ - Progra, the only daughter of the cheif of the tribe, waved to the dwellers of the three adobe huts, who waved back.
In comparison the unix way is hopelessly boring, user files in /usr, network shared user files in /usr/share/, local user files in /usr/local, optional files in /opt and stuff in /var and /etc that will look familiar whether you are on Irix, Solaris, Linux and a pile of other systems. Just beacuse MS can't display their filenames the same way all the time within a single operating system does not mean that others are as careless.
he called him "Linux Torvalds" ... if noone else caught that...
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.
Ummm, actually you CAN use ReadFile and WriteFile on a socket. Read the docs. In fact, ReadFile and WriteFile can be used on anything that acts like a pipe or file. Perhaps the libarary you are using is doing something wrong?
I would like to see Windows running on a mainframe, then I would change my judgement maybe.
I don't understand those who insist on using Perl when you can use an advanced programming language like Common Lisp:
$ clisp -q -x "(loop for x from 1 to 10 do (print x))"
Thank you for proving my point that programing for Windows is different to programing for Unix (and Linux in specific).
I'll leave it up to you to figure out how you've proved it.
Try re-reading my post if it helps.
Advanced users are users too!
I use Linux most of the time, one day a friend of mine and I were discussing GUIs. My friend is a long time litestep user and suggested that I try Litestep on my Windows machine, my response was "I did try it for a little while but I ran out of patience trying to configure it." After a moment of thought we had a good laugh about the irony of the statement.
I use Windows handly little batch language for all kinds of tasks on my domain - from scheduling tasks, to archiving logs, to cleaning up old files. You really should learn a thing or two about Windows before blindly bashing it.
Here is just one example.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
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.
I learned something new today. Thanks. :)
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Is this because by default windows doesn't have a loopback interface s internal services listen on a public interface?
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
That is a good point you make there. "none of the above actually come with 'linux' either. They come with a distro, or as packages."
For me, this means that on Windows, the standard way of getting a program is to
1) Fire up IE
2) Go on Google
3) Search (sometimes using site:microsoft.com)
4) Follow a link or three
5) Click on the download link
6) Choose "open"
7) Pray it doesn't cause trouble
8) Repeat steps 2-7 for each program
On Gentoo, it's
1) Fire up aterm
2) Switch to root
3) Type 'emerge sync'
4) Type 'emerge -s '
5) Type 'emerge '
6) Repeat steps 4-5 for each program
That's assuming I don't already have a good idea of the package name. For example: want to try out the new ut2004 demo?
emerge ut2004-demo
That's it. This is a pretty standard amount of work, btw, for any Linux distro.
Add to that the fact that most of what you're talking about (other shells, games, networking tools) is third-party and so you are downloading binary executables that are not signed, meaning a simple MITM attack and you now have a virus. On Linux, I think most package managers sign packages -- or if they don't, it wouldn't be too hard to add this. I could verify, for instance, that the Gentoo developers say that this particular ut2004 demo is not a trojan -- or, more likely, my package manager did it for me.
On top of that, the Gentoo devs also have checked to make sure that this package does not break anything else Gentoo, and that it's reasonably stable. And if that isn't enough, Gentoo (for one) let's me configure global _compile_time_ optimization settings for each package. I don't have to dick around on a web site looking for the "64-bit version" if I have Athlon64, or pray there's a mac version if I'm on a PowerPC architecture. Nor do I have to rely on what some web server thinks my OS is.
No matter what my hardware, I can just type
emerge nmap
and I have nmap installed.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
god@world:~$ diff linux windows
;)
linux works.
windows costs money.
god@world:~$
-------------
over & out
I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
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
Unless Microsoft opens up their kernel or pays some fairly hefty license fees, there will never be Reiser4 on Windows. It's a filesystem, which goes in the kernel, right? Of course, maybe I'm wrong -- after all, we got ntfs.sys working on Linux with Captive NTFS, so maybe something similar could be done here. Still, reiser4 is in the Linux kernel, ntfs is in the Windows kernel. Compare them for incredibly different benchmarks and feature sets.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Free as in you buy our X number of dollars OS and you get all these tools free (or at least, you can download and install them freely). Additionally, these tools are only meant for Windows -- kind of like Canadian Tire money is only for Canadian Tire)
As far as I'm concerned, you don't get something free unless that something is worth less than the amount you paid for the original. For example, if the Windows version was considered worth $150 bucks, and the "free" dev tools were considered to actually worth $100 I would not get the dev tools free if I spent $150. I would have to spend
If you really think about it, it makes perfect sense. Otherwise it's like you paid the $100 for the OS and the other $50 for the "free dev tools". You have to hand it to those marketing people, they are good at fooling people into thinking the tools are free when it's really already included in the commercial system's price -- your just not told it's in there but it is.
Hmmm...I wonder how much I paid for the Calculator application in my $300 copy of Windows...
I used to work with 100+ windows server. Not just managing them but doing some cutting edge stuffs with it. I installed hardware, installed windows on the system. It was a sheer nightmare...
because I wanted to do following stuffs and terminal services were horribly slow. It is always better to have 2nd option of having minial ways to tap into system when 1st option fails...windows did not have this option without 3rd party tools.
1) can someone tell me ways to configure {and|or} manage exchange server via telnet/ssh?
2) can someone tell me ways to configure {and|or} manage dns server via telnet/ssh?
3) can someone tell me why "net user" command has bug which isn't fixed with latest patch on my windows 2000 {professional | server}? Just try creating user with specific settings {group, password, users cannot change password check box settings - done by option & etc} on shell and it doesn't work quite right.
4) can someone tell me why some programs require "admininstrator" priv to modify registery. So, I am forced to grant console user an administrator priv in order for goddam program to work correctly. Is this a software issue or is this a design issue.
ex) autocad will require it's user to have administrator priv to work correctly. And most of the games require administrator priv to work correctly. What happened to the paradigm of multi-user? Why does windows have different group when many applications must run as "administrator" in order to work right?
5) can someone tell me why as simple as changing hostname will have effect of screwing up CIF/SMB?
6) can someone tell me why I cannot mount different CIF/SMB mount which are associated with different identity?
As network admin, I'd like to have access to different CIF/SMB. But, windows only allows me to the single identity. I am forced to sync all my password throughout the entire organization.
Single point of failure is a very bad thing.
7) sometimes, I'd love to see "Browse" button and I miss it badly. It usually happens during upgrade of some sort. I'll just have blank page so, I'll have to type in the full path + filename. It usually happens during an installation of the device driver and aborting this will surely damage system's registery beyond who knows where it refuse to cooperative with my next attempt at installing a driver. ps: I've taken cd out of system and popped into my notebook just to read what the fullpath + filename and write down number of times.
Oktokie's $.05
I almost posted that question anon, because I figured someone would think I was trolling. But that was a great explanation, and exactly what I was hoping for. :)
I strongly believe (having used .net technology at work for a year) the the total cost of a project is greatly reduced if you use .Net (or perhaps even java) where possible. The SDK is well documented and support is available at MSDN. .net... I think you would have to be very, very creative with math to prove that statement...
I'm not arguing that MS is not a monopolist. I see the moral side of it, but saying that overal cost is increased in
At a "base" install, they're both fairly workable.
At a "standard" install, Linux distros wins hands down
At a "non-standard" install, Windows wins (read: packages not carried by your distro, dependency hell etc. Win apps are usually one setup file)
At a "customized" install, Linux wins again. You can tweak it to hell and back.
That goes for apps, and it goes for drivers. A Linux install that recognizes all your hardware is bliss compared to its Windows counterpart. But if it doesn't, it's usually double-click and install on Windows, problematic in Linux. Though you can usually hack it working in some way...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Parent is right on target, except that Ruby is the system he's looking for, Backstreet Ruby is the 2.4 backport of it. I'm running the multi-user set-up right now. It's very cool and saved us thousands (NOK).... :-)
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
From the article:
the two operating systems will continue to narrow to a point where their underlying kernel becomes irrelevant.
I bet it's not so irrelevant that we'll see MS Office ported to Linux!
Surely to Microsoft, the underlying kernel is VERY important - they want it to be theirs otherwise they'll make less money. It's very important to me too, since I don't want to pay $299 for Microsoft's kernel/OS and never use any of it apart from the Kernel.
Sure, to a lot of end users, the underlying kernel means nothing as long as their software runs, but to software companies like Microsoft, and other developers, it will continue to mean a lot.
Follow me
Forget Windows. Aim higher.
This is by design in Windows so that a user can modify their own settings (under HKEY_CURRENT_USER), but only suitably elevated users can modify system settings (under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE).
The fact that AutoCAD doesn't work without this access is an indication that the application is badly written - using local system registry where it should be using the user's registry. This is not a Windows' problem.
The Microsoft Problem Solving Process;
At least to activate peer-to-peer.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Well, Windows is an operating system, and Linux is a kernel. Hmm, I'm almost beginning to see why GNU/RMS gets so annoyed about this stuff.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Umm, you know that there are actually European people living and working in the US?
Article title:
"Linux kernel: Moving closer to Windows?"
First line:
"Tech Ed: Security and the way windowing is handled remain two of the diminishing differences between Linux and Windows, according to one of the main speakers at Microsoft's developer conference"
However, windowing is nothing to do with the kernel. The fact that the writer, supposedly comparing the two systems, isn't aware of this distinction casts doubt on the review methodology and expertise.
I forgot what I was really looking for was not just one type, but two - so something like:
...
FOR %x in (C:\SomeDir\*.jar;C:\SomeDir\*.zip) DO (
Is anything like that legal?
I guess I can just do two loops. I was also wondering if you could use the output of a "find" kind of command in that loop, to get stuff out of multipe subdirs.
Thanks for the answer though - to both posters!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You've certainly been seeing something I've not. I've never heard a developer complain about OpenGL being hard to code in, but I've certainly heard abuse hurled at the whole DirectX malarky. What DirectX does have going for it is the fact it covers not just graphics, but sound, networking, and input devices.
Personally I found OpenGL to be complete and utter bliss to use.
jh
will you people quit having fits like 'MS = monopoly (convicted, even)'. The term monopoly is missaplied. The conviction was not about marketshare. You are simply lying.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
The parent poster is referring to this, I believe (the name is different and a little confusing, probably to emphasize Windows and not the Unix capabilities this provides). Apparently registration is required. Looks very useful.
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
Copying OS X should also be a lot easier than copying Windows, since there's a good free implementation of OpenStep, the toolkit that Apple's Cocoa framework is based on, in GNUstep... plus the underlying OS is UNIX-based and runs GNU tools natively.
Miss Teacher, Linus is copying from me again!
Those of us who type really fast prefer to write many of our programs from scratch :-)
- it can run on anything from wrist-watches to supercomputers and clusters.
- you can choose to install it on a server without any desktop, not to mention customizing every little bit of it if you like
- it's free
+ What would you pay for I.E.? - Nothing, it's free. + How long would it be free if not for Mozilla? (And Netscape before that -- remember the big court case?) - Always? + Yeah, right. OK, how much did you pay for MS Office? - Alot. + Yeah, but you ought to try Open Office. It's free and it's supposed to be that way. Anything from Microsoft that's free is only that way because of what competitive pressure they haven't been able to wipe out by cutthroat tactics. Now about this whole discussion of operating systems. It's a curious thing, but there have been no new big ideas in operating systems since the 1970's. No one who sells (or gives away the code only to sell their help-desk) operating systems had anything to do with the fundamental ideas behind a modern (if 35 years old is modern in computers) operating system. You can read all about multitasking and multiprocessing in any old operating systems textbook. About 10 years ago, what Microsoft had to offer didn't do any of those complicated things. Unix, and lots of other systems did, but not old MS DOS and not Windows 3.1. So who's doing the copying? But now, everyone has them, and it's all in the execution, in the details. But I don't ever use Windows, hardly ever. I have an old laptop with ME, and it still crashes all the time. My last reboot here on Linux was after the big blackout last summer in the Northeast. Not fair, though; Windows has come a long way, you say, catching up, I say. I was amused this morning when I saw an ad on the Web from Microsoft, offering to block popup windows for free. What popup windows? I use Mozilla. I never see them.
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....
It even groups taskbar buttons!
WINE is only a marginal success. Isn't it about time all the capable mo-fo arcane hacking super guru programmers out there get their asses in gear and volunteer some of their time to the WINE project for gawd's sakes? We REALLY CAN create a Windows-free Windows-compatible OS and GUI system if we really want to. And don't we really want to?!!! You know you want to!
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
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.
Please don't say "we all". I would like to think this, and maybe in Slashdot world it is true (which is what you may have been referring to). But in the "real world" of IT, market share is a HUGE factor.
This happened to me yesterday. I was talking with my manager about an application we use, and we have been having problems with it. It runs on Sybase as the database, but also does a weird XML file structure in conjunction with it. We were talking about the possibility of rolling our own program to take its place. He made some off comment about how he couldn't believe that they chose Sybase. I pointed out that we haven't had one problem with Sybase, it has been with the front-end program. To which he replied: "Look, there are only 2 databases out there to choose from - Oracle and MS SQL." If I was sitting down, I would have fell out of my chair.
First off, MS is 3rd in DB market share, behind Oracle and IBM, but he is a die-hard MS person (for no good reason, from what I have gathered). Second of all, you have to choose your tools based on your need. For the app we were discussing, Oracle would have been overkill. In his mind, that leaves only one choice. He is under the impression that anything other than MS is crap, and that we already have experts in MSSQL (which we do, because our product uses MSSQL). But he didn't make his argument based on that, he made it on "there are only 2 databases out there". I mentioned Sybase, MySQL, etc. and he said that someone would have to go through training to use those. I guess he is under the impression that SQL is like planning a moon mission.
My manager is deeply entrenched in MS's posterior, just like most companies I would imagine. They like to buy up all their products (sorry, license) and then complain about them. "Reboot the server" is an *ACTUAL* solution to a lot of problems. It isn't even questioned anymore, that is just part of regular maintenance. There is no alternative, move along.
Sorry to rant, but what you said hit home with me. I am working amongst people who don't know any better, and aren't even willing to consider that there are other software products out there. We got an email the other day saying that because of a recent IE exploit, we should avoid using the internet until they could get a fix and make it available. Unbelievable.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
If you're using BASH, just set an alias:
Saves me an awful lot of time, since I habitually use it without a space as well
Who meta-moderates the meta-moderators?
Exactly. A big advantage of Windows is that anyone (even your grandmother) can be a sysadmin. A big disadvantage of Windows is that anyone (even your grandmother) thinks they can be a sysadmin.
http://publicvoidlife.blogspot.com
The Linux kernel uses the building block approach like Unix. There are basically 6 core commands built into the kernel. Other software applications and processes are not.
The Windows kernel has more applications/processes included into the kernel itself. This decreases stability in an operating system.
Think of Chinese characters (or hyroglphics) vs the English langauge. One is simple in that there is one symbol for everything that can be combined with others to make something more simple. (Windows) The other can use it's six building blocks to make anything complex and is not limited by the total number of symbols it has.
For more detail or proof, read "Just for Fun" by Linus Torvalds. There is a good section on how the Unix kernel operates. Or just complain about my lack of explanation and I'll go in more depth.
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.
You can perform pretty much all the same tasks on pretty much any modern operating system with pretty much the same degree of efficiency and reliability.
This is what Russinovich means when he says that Linux has been playing catch-up - he doesn't talk about portability, security, etc, he's only looking at one particular side of things.
and point to an article from 1999 where Mark tells us:
So, it seems, his whole point was not technical but a business opinion. The evidence was already there against this business opinion, regardless of technical issues. Poor Mark lacked business vision.
Google was already up and running and so was Hotmail and both proved the value of free software. Hotmail, I believe, was running BSD which was even less developed than Linux at the time. If Google was not "prime time", I'm not sure what is. Microsoft's repeated attempts to make "NT" work for Hotmail were a terrible embarrassment.
Mark, regardless of his technical knowledge, clearly lacks business understanding and "can do". People who had those things back in 1998 were making plenty of money using Linux and clearly benefitted from a lack of license fees. No "catch up" was required, though companies that adopted also benefit from free software growth.
Perhaps Mark was not misquoted after all. He wrote that entire wintel rag article. The ZDNet article was written by a reporter who has learned nothing from the last five years. Mark might not have either.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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,
That Linux is an operating system kernel and Windows is an operating system.
That article is a comparison between Linux + a bunch of 3rd party software not necessary to run Linux and Windows.
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Microsoft now supplies free (as in beer) compilers for C#, VB.NET C++, J++, etc. with the dot net framework, which is available here. Longhorn will come with the .NET framework, and thus all of the compilers, preinstalled.
.NET Framework includes runtime files only, not development tools. Windows 2003 Server already comes with the Framework (runtime files) preinstalled, but I suppose it's possible that the final release of Longhorn will include the SDK.
.NET Framework v1.1 that one must download separately.
Actually, not much of that is accurate. The
As of this writing, the SDK includes support for C++, C#, and VB.NET, but not J#. Even J# runtime files are a superset of
If you have to understand one point about Linux, it is this:
The code itself is not special. It is almost meaningless. When detractors like Ken Brown argue that there's no way that Linux could be as powerful as commercial UNIX today without having stolen code, he is entirely missing the point.
Good writers are called good writers because they have a brilliant idea, viewpoint, or wit, and express it in writing. Anyone who knows how to write can take a dictation, but not everyone who can take great dictation is a great writer. Great artists are great artists because they have a unique vision of the world and can express it. A great artist is not someone who can just photorealistically render a bowl of fruit to canvas.
Software development, while more utilitarian than art, is no different. The development of the idea itself is what all of the labors of the software development process go towards--the representation of an idea as code is the easy part. This is why so many Operating Systems resemble UNIX--lots of people spent lots of time thinking about the best set of primitives to make available to the programmer and system operator. Coming up with UNIX from scratch is hard, that requires thinking. Making a system that looks like UNIX is relatively easy in comparisen.
The Linux project (and its ilk) develop so well because an entire marketplace (like a bazaar?) of ideas push and pull it, guide it in the direction that makes it most usable. The good ideas continue to live, the less good ideas disappear. The marketplace mostly decides where Linux goes.
The process that develops Linux is what is so valuable.
Windows entirely lacks this process because of one simple fact: Microsoft does not give a fuck about what I want out of Windows. I'm just one person out of a million. However, with Linux, I have the freedom to make my system do whatever I want, and if I can present a good enough reason (ie, the idea stands on its merits) for what I want out of it, it'll be introduced into the mainstream. If not, oh well, at least my little corner of the universe is to my liking.
Yes. Every single Windows program out there is a trojan, infected with virii, who in turn are infected with other virii. It's completely impossible to boot a Windows box without immediately seeing it crash because of the virus that came with the antivirus program. Of course, before crashing Windows sends your bank account information to the folks at Microsoft who then empty your account.
Just as every single Linux program has to be grabbed off some CVS server, requires the full sources for the kernel, KDE, Gnome, X and zlib, only compiles with one specific version of gcc and is in no way to be considered stable.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
> looking for a command prompt?
If you're looking for a command prompt on Windows XP, I suggest Start->Run then type "cmd.exe". I recommend it over "command.com" any day.
> Download Microsoft Unix tools for Windows. You'll get a better integrated variation on cygwin
I personally use UnxUtils, it's free and the source is available. It's less invasive than cygwin, just extract the files and add that directory to your path. (I use c:\usr\local\wbin.) The typical DOS environment is still there but now you can use Unix commands to your heart's content: ls, diff, md5sum, touch, etc.
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.
...OR, if you're using windows: ..
c:\>doskey cd=cd
Linux is not the same thing as the X windowing system (I hardly ever use X). Furthermore, it depends largely on which window manager you look at. I use the Fluxbox wm most of the time, and it looks nothing like Windows.
Besides, Microsoft wasn't the first to do a windowing system.
It seems all Microsoft can pick on is artwork!
Yes- but I don't like it terribly well. I guess I just identify with that very small percentage of my blood that comes from Oklahoma and Washington State. Long before either of those two WERE states (Cherokee and Klickitat). For some strange reason, I like those ancestors far better than the French Canadian, Hebrew, German, or English ancestors that make up the rest of my genetic heritage. Something about actually RESPECTING tradition there.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I would use find, but what I really want is to pluck out multiple kinds of files - jar and zip, actually. I don't think there's a way to pass multiple -name flags to find?
E PARATOR}${CLASSPATH}"
So I used the loop.
Actually, here's the real command I have set in the bashrc:
for i in `cd ${PRIMARY_DRIVE}${PROJECT_HOME}/Lib/Java; ls *.zip *.jar`
do
export CLASSPATH="${PROJECT_HOME}/Lib/Java/${i}${CPATH_S
done
Now I remember another reason I used the loop, was to set the classpath seperator properly - though I see you have done that with xargs.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It seems the problem is what you're going to use it for. I use Linux for the simple fact that I work in a computer service shop, and I stare at Windows machines all day. I trudge through the machines of the elderly who have no idea what a "Windows Update" is, stare at mysterious blue screens and generally have no urge to even see the startup screen or the Microsoft logo or anything related to Bill Gates by the time I get home. However... Linux doesn't solve all my problems. It doesn't support my printer or my 5.1 sound card. Now, I could have bought a printer and a sound card that Linux did support, but it wasn't installed on my machine at that time, so I really didn't give it much thought. The argument reminds me of the age-old console debates. For years, fanboys engaged in sprited debates about which system was better, 2600 or Colecovision...NES or Master System, SNES or Genesis, Playstation or N64, and currently, PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube (and PC). Back in the day, especially the days of NES, you had a lot more exclusive games. There were the requisite first party games, the games you bought the system for, whether you wanted to play Zelda or Phantasy Star, Mario or Sonic. In those days, third party developers didn't have a lot of cash to throw around, so they generally developed for the number one system at the time. Today, software companies still want to make money, which is why you see Windows compatible software in just about every place you can buy computer related items. It's why your DVDs have Windows requirements for the DVD-ROM portion of your copy of Phantom Menace. The lesson here is simple: the only people who never fueled the argument were the people who owned both systems. Other spirited debates you can try: Coke vs. Pepsi vs. RC Mello Yello vs. Mountain Dew Ford vs. Chevrolet Base jumping vs. skydiving Tekken vs. Virtua Fighter Star Trek vs. Battlestar Galactica Beatles vs. Monkees the Ghostbusters vs. the REAL Ghostbusters Transformers vs. Go-Bots Silverhawks vs. Thundercats Or, you can make your own!
Remember, when a business purchases Windows, they're also purchasing support from Microsoft.
Possibly. Frequently Microsoft will expect whoever sold the computer to provide "support".
Just the same, a business using Linux is likely to purchase a distribution for exactly the same reason. They want a guarantee that if something breaks, it'll get fixed and it won't be their responsibility to fix it.
If this is the service you want then the vast majority of "support contracts" won't provide this in the first place.
What you want is an "it's broken, here is X amount of money to fix it" kind of service. Unless you have the budget of a large transnational corporation or a reasonably sized nation state to hand you have no chance at all of getting such a service from Microsoft.
Restore Points uses the Volume Shadow Copy service. And it makes checkpoints of everything, not just the registry. Well, it makes copies of everything that matches one of these filename extensions.o l/backuprestore/filesnottobackup lists a few more things to not copy (DRM, pagefile, hibernation file, drive/help indexes, etc.) There's a couple registry keys around there that specify specific registry keys to not restore when rolling the system back.
The file %sysdir%/system32/restore/filelist.xml will explain better. It specifies paths to omit, for example, the My Documents folder in local user profiles, WBEM logs, temporary folders, cookies, etc.
In the registry...
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/system/CurrentControlSet/contr
All of the above is, of course, completely configurable. If you want your documents backed up too, you can do that.
The only thing that's never backed up is the SAM ( %sysdir%/system32/config/SAM ), for obvious reasons (don't want to roll back passwords)
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
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.
They both come in a variety of colors, and they both are essentialy square, so they must be very much the same... Cars are becoming a lot more like pillows lately.. Now that's news! No, PLEASE think. The real difference between products is NOT how it looks. It's how it works, how it performs it's tasks. Cars and pillows may both be square and colorful, but try sleeping with a car under your head, or driving on the freeway with only a pillow... Things can look a like, it doesn't make them the same!
Very, very few of the comments here have any relevance to what Russinovich talked about, or have any kind of developer perspective at all.
The topic and the talk (I saw it) was very interesting for a real developer, and the slides were all cleared by Linus, Dave Cutler, Ingo Molnar and several others.
Russinovich's conclusion (that Linux is adding many Windows features) was no where near as interesting as the discussion of what those features where and how they were evolving.
I think people just piled into this thread to rag on MS. And the comments (mostly modded all the way to 5) are repetitive and non-original. It would be a pity if that became SlashDot's main purpose.
You don't happen to have a tomographic imaging scanner on board, do you?
If Linux is trying to become more like windows, it seems it is not quite there yet. I haven't been able to create the blue screen of death on my Linux box! Get to work on this all you lazy Linux developers! Only with the BSOD can Linux claim to be just like windows!
By the perception of illusion, we experience reality
Likewise, if you use a Common Lisp script in a program that you distribute, then you make the Common Lisp interpreter a dependency, and not all programs' circumstances can accept this. Particularly, for license reasons, the BSD operating systems don't want to make a GPL'd 'clisp' interpreter a dependency.
Still, you'll like this.
Christ.
I'm a contractor for Red Hat. Before that I worked for a Linux / Unix consulting company for five years. I use Linux exclusively on my hardware.
I make a post pointing out some good and badthings in Windows vs Linux, and its a troll? What a lame moderation. if you disagree, then reply.
Fuck off.
I just installed the Linspire variant of Debian/Linux. Its Internet browser crashes regularly for no apparent reason. Windows IE never crashed this much. Where's the much vaunted stability? This is one aspect I wished Linux would emulate...
Slashdot entertains. Windows pays the mortgage.
Does anything else arrive so broken?
/etc/hosts.deny for anything but the slackest security levels. Oh, yes, and when you switch something off it really does get switched off.
Mandrake Linux warns you that putting services up is a risk, on top of firewalling them all off by default and ALL:ALL in
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Well, I use regex's all the time with find so I'm familiar with escaping them out - but I had not ever heard of the "-o" option in all the years I've used find, thanks...
Interestingly I did have a co-worker who liked using xargs with find - but he used "xargs grep -l PATTERN" instead of "-exec grep -l PATTERN {} \;" with find and I think ran into problems with really deep drectories, where grep would feed him errors...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In soviet Russia...
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.