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 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
Great-- this is going to attract the anti-linux trolls AND the anti-microsoft trolls, each arguing over whom you're talking about.
I should not talk so much about myself if there were anybody else whom I knew as well. -Henry David Thoreau
"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.
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.
Except that the recent versions of Windows have been extremely stable. I've got XP Pro on my laptop, and it has never crashed. On my workstation, I've got Server 2003. It's never crashed either.
In fact, my workstation won't let me restart or shutdown without asking why I'm doing that. It gets annoying if I have to reboot for something, but it tells how little MS expects to have the OS go down.
win2k hasnt crashed on me once unless I was being a fscktard and doing something stupid. I guess thats the one that is stable and hard to use cuz windows has always really confused me [/sarcasm]
"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
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.
I have to agree here. Linux is becoming more and more a "desktop" operating system. Default installs with lots of bloat and installed services. One of the reasons I try to avoid using mainstream software... besides any security (etc.) advantages, is because I like being a geek and doing things the hard way :). I like to get my hands dirty. I also
like powerful, flexible software that does the job over fancy GUIs and
the like. But, it seems Linux is drifting away in the direction of
Windows.
HOWEVER, one of the reasons the Linux community has become so splintered (different distros, etc.) is because people are taking Linux in different directions. SuSE, LinSpire, and many other commercial providers are trying to make Linux a friendly, easy-to-use experience. Whilst Slackware and Debian are sticking to their roots.
As a side note: BSD is a server OS (no question about it). Windows is a desktop OS (being twisted into a server platform). But which is Linux?
...that, to me, separate Linux (and, by extension, BSD) from Windows
1) A monolithic kernel that can be customized and tailored by any end user willing to take the plunge, or at least just compile from source.
2) A variety of command shells that are intended to be used as full-fledged operating environments, without the need for a GUI.
(ObDisclaimer: haven't read the article, probably won't)
Some of the windowing environments and GUI-based programs try to emulate the Windows look-n-feel, but I haven't run across many things in the rest of Linux-based operating systems that can be thought of as copied from Windows... well, except for the embarrassingly registry-like GConf2 database (the first time I used the graphical gconftool to change spatial Nautilus back to usable-for-me Nautilus, I nearly regurgitated at the bad memories it brought back).
I think this guy might as well say any operating system "copies" things from Windows, Mac OS, and every other operating system.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
He says in the article: "Both kernels are monolithic". I thought the Windows kernel was monopolithic.
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?
Actually, if I get the "cheap" version of SUSE, it's $30. If I get Windows XP Home Edition with a piece of hardware, it's $90.
Isn't that $60?
If the main advantage of Linux is based on price, it's starting to become less and less of an advantage. Perhaps you guys should start working on usability and driver coverage. But don't take my word for it, I'm just 90% of the market.
Lucky you- I'm using Server 2003 as a server- and it regularly crashes. Just about every time it downloads a so-called "update". I'm forced to run Roxio's GoBack just to be able to reboot it once every few weeks- usually when it crashes, it crashes hard (as in, "Your updates have been installed, reboot now? Yes,of course. Oh, too bad, I'm going to bluescreen during the boot sequence now.).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
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.
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.
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
If there was one evil I could rid us of in this world it would be the Windows Registry... Please MS, take the hint and get rid of it!
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 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)
POSIX isn't a kernal. It's a standards specification. The first POSIX-compliant OS was VMS, which is about as un-unixy as you can get.
I went to a DECUS symposium in the early 1990s where two VMS engineers explained what they had to do to achieve POSIX-compliance. It was humorous in that the official validation suite couldn't necessarily run on a strictly POSIX-compliant OS, because it assumed the presence of common UNIX tools that weren't actually in the spec at the time.
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 ...
That's no excuse. No OS should ever crash for any software-induced reason, ever. There's a famous story (perhaps in the Jargon File?) about a UNIX system that got half-blown-away by a misplaced "rm -rf /" and was recovered without rebooting. Now that's robust.
In fact, my workstation won't let me restart or shutdown without asking why I'm doing that. It gets annoying if I have to reboot for something, but it tells how little MS expects to have the OS go down.
This isn't because they don't expect it to go down. This is because it is designed to be a server operating system. Asking why you're shutting down or rebooting is a feature present to give system administrators a record of what is going on with the machine. It may or may not have anything to do with Microsoft not expecting the operating system to crash.
Mark 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!
I'm running Windows XP on VMWare in Linux. Linux doesn't crash, it keeps on chugging along fine, but Windows XP in the vmware session is what reboots. its not a hardware problem, otherwise it would kill linux too (I run VMWare as root too). its crappy code in windows that kills it. I'm also running DC++ as me and I not an administrator.
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Oh and there are RPMS
RPMs have given me install problems in the past. Some have refused to install and i being only a novice linux user, had one hell of a time finding out why.
My solution was to give up linux at that point because i had been using it for a few months. I did like it quite a bit. The powerful tools that linux comes with are quite incredible however gui graphic performance, very hard install problems (dependencies, rpms that wont install etc) and the fact that i had to use Wine to run Newsbin pro.
Linux was a fun experience but it was a little rough for me. With a little bit of smoothing out, linux which is an incredible system, could be as easy as windows.
The problem from what i'm guessing is the open source nature of projects. Limited resources to make a single conforming ui flow etc...
I've been thinking about running linux again actually. Its a beast that has always been in the back of my mind nagging me. Its something that is quite fun and its an adventure. A New OS, a powerfull one, that does things windows doesnt... but windows does a lot that linux has problems with and well i kind of need those things... so it keep sme from going back. But i would go back to linux on one of my pcs.
First off, what the hell is "X-windows"? I know of the X Window System, X11, X, X.org, XFree86 -- but I know nothing of this "X-windows."
Now, what the author of the article fails to point out, is that the more significant difference between the operating systems, is that one requires the use of GUI display, while the other finds it entirely optional.
win2k hasnt crashed on me once unless I was being a fscktard and doing something stupid.
Doing something stupid
v. intr.
Taking some action that causes Windows to crash.
(fingers in ears)
"la la la la la I can't hear yooooooou la la la la la la"
Are you sure about that? An official windows XP advertisement from microsoft says 64 kilobytes! 256 kilobytes sounds too high.
On Debian, or with apt2rpm on Red Hat or SuSE its "apt-get install program". On Red Hat and other RPM distributions its "rpm -ivh program.rpm", even Slackware, which is what I use, some stuff like what's on linuxpackages.net is available with "installpkg program.tgz".
No compilation needed, at least for the several thousand or so most popular programs. Some of these programs such as apt-get will even download the programs for you. Of course, compilation isn't so hard. "./configure", "make", and "make install" Three commands that togeather will work on 99% of source code.
I suspect that you're a troll considering your nick, but if not perhaps this will let you run Linux since you claim its "one thing keeping me away"
Unless you run xscreensaver-bsod ;)
Meep.
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
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?
"Except that the recent versions of Windows have been extremely stable. I've got XP Pro on my laptop, and it has never crashed. On my workstation, I've got Server 2003. It's never crashed either."
I've had good luck, too. Sadly, though, some people's machines don't fair so well. My boss has a machine virtually identical to mine. Niether of us have much installed. Despite that, my machine's damn near bullet proof while his likes to randomly crash. I can't help but wonder if there's some odd variable that randomly appears on some people's machines that gives them nothing but trouble with XP/2K/NT. If I'm right, it explains how XP or 2K earned the unstable reputation. Like somebody who switched to Linux because XP was unstable is going to listen to my stories of excellent stability across multiple machines.
"Derp de derp."
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.
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.
You shouldn't be administering any server without the proper knowledge. Any system which crashes regularly has something wrong with it which is your problem to fix. Windows, BSD, Linux, or Palm: misconfiguation == doom.
I didn't mean that to be impugning your abilities, but consider it.
"My God, this must be a truly remarkable corn chip, to be so widely and confidently touted."
Windows is catching up on stability and Linux is catching up on ease of use. These will likely be more or less resolved problems in a couple of years. On the other hand, one system will allow allow you to do whatever you want with your computer (as long as its possible, and you know how to tell the computer what you want it to do), and the other will allow you to do whatever someone else wants you to be able to do with your computer.
-jim
#> 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.
Kinda hard to do that if you don't have a computer with an OS on it yet.
The cake is a pie
I use them both, but what keeps me with Windows is games.
When more games are made to run under Linux natively then I will see the need to no longer have Windows (the OS) around.
There are TONS of differences!
1. Just the hardware itself could have defects, bad connections(memory, CPU, bus), RH interference, bad power supply, heat issues, etc
2. The software may not be entirely the same.. this could include drivers and patches
In short, no two machines are the same. Hardware has varying tolerences that are smaller than ever these days. You're bound to get flakey performance from one of many of the "same" type machines.
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
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
"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.
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.
Devil's Advocate:
./configure
how about
I've seen Linux-distribution-specific checks in some configure scripts...quite annoying (especially on Solaris). I really wish all programmers who choose to use autoconf actually put forth the effort to make their software portable. If they don't want to do that amount of work, just give me a big configuration file that I can edit manually.
Oh and there are RPMS
The man page for rpm is 15 pages long. Also, installing a single RPM can quickly turn into a game of 52 Pickup.
this isn't reocket science
Troubleshooting compilation and installation issues is practically rocket science. I've been using UNIX for years and I still struggle sometimes to understand exactly why the linker failed or why a certain header file is generating syntax errors.
Quite honestly, the best installers I've experienced under UNIX really are the equivilent of setup.exe, because they are self-extracting shell scripts complete with prompts for the install directory and other parameters. It isn't really necessary all the time to have the software managed by the package database, and just deleting a directory tree is the best way to "uninstall".
-- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
The problem is not "message passing".
The reason X works badly has nothing to do with the one extra context switch per action. In fact if X is just drawing and avoiding the problem calls, it has far fewer context switches than Windows, since the drawing calls are all stuffed in a buffer and sent as one block (it's possible Windows is doing this in modern versions, too, I don't know).
The problems are:
1. There are two unsynchronized processes talking to the window server: the "window manager" which draws the borders, and the application, which draws the internals. Imagine if just one program sent the command to make the window bigger and stuffed into the same buffer the instructions to draw the all-new window border and contents, right on the heels of the make-window-bigger call. This is what Windows effectively has, that X lacks. And it is not going to be fixed until we admit that it is ok for programs to draw their own window borders.
2. There is a serious lack of useful drawing primitives, meaning that X programs that want to look good have to send entire images of their windows to the server. Now GDI32 is not a lot better, but it does support rotated and scaled fonts, drawing images without having to figure out the "visual" and with *one* call, and the new ones support alpha-based compositing (well, kinda), and the font drawing was switched to antialiased in a way that let old programs use the antialiased fonts. And hundreds of other indications that the people trying to fix GDI32 are somewhat more active and smarter than the X consortium, which did nothing!
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...
Or for 9x/ME
I like Linux like the next guy, but you don't really have to hack the registry to update Window's IP address. Of course, you usually have to reboot 9x. I never really understood why, but certain changes just never take otherwise. (Spoken as a network admin who has had to migrate network settings several times for about 200 machines.)
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Linux still needs a blue screen of death....
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.
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.
I'm running Windows XP on VMWare in Linux. Linux doesn't crash, it keeps on chugging along fine, but Windows XP in the vmware session is what reboots. its not a hardware problem, otherwise it would kill linux too
It is most definitely a "hardware" problem - it's a virtual hardware problem. You are incorrectly assuming that VMWare doesn't have any bugs with emulating your hardware and running Windows.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
It's no secret that Linux (like most other operating systems) is moving closer to Windows in many respects, but the article seems to ignore the fact that Windows has been steadily moving closer to UNIX as well.
Since it's introduction, NT has grown POSIX compliance, terminal services, adopted parts of the BSD TCP/IP stack, and now even has a free UNIX emulation layer available directly from Microsoft in the form of Services for UNIX.
It's great to see that Operating Systems are adopting things that work from each other, but there's certainly no grounds to say that either Windows or Linux is clearly superior in every respect and the other is playing catch-up, which is what this guy seems to be implying.
"I also pointed out that a pre-emptible kernel is a lot more responsive to a high priority thread," said Russinovich, moving on to his next target. "The Linux kernel 2.6 was made fully pre-emptible."
I can personally promise that the preemptability of Windows was not a factor in the desire to code a preemptive kernel or its eventual design.
while (!asleep()) sheep++
Yes, there is a version of VC++ which is free.
~Aha~
i demand a rite of passage. i went throught it. and i am just a joe six pack construction worker. free beer usually means there's work involved. i have a choice. i made it. it works for me. YMMV.
Serenity now, insanity later.
His argument does not show Linux converging to Windows anymore than it show Windows converging to Linux.
... which is a ripoff from Xerox?
Mak'tal shree lok'tak mek'ta sa'tak Oz! - Daniel Jackson
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.
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 don't understand those who use a weird unreadable combination of bash/tcsh/ksh/awk/sed/m4/makefile script when one simple perl script can do it all
If you use a Perl script in a program that you distribute, then you make the Perl interpreter a dependency, and not all programs' circumstances can accept this. If you use a Perl script on Windows, then you make a high-speed Internet connection a dependency, as it costs big bucks to get a license to distribute ActivePerl on CD.
You in the Linux community have put enough pressure for Microsoft to compete again. The parent is right; Windows Longhorn will indeed ship with all the compilers pre-installed, specifically so that no matter what machine you sit down at, the tools will be available to you.
.NET technology and the level of community involvement the developers have shown. Thanks to the OSS community.
They've been more open lately, specifically because the heat being put on them. As a result, they're slowly becoming a better company. I'm very happy with the
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.
It's quite ironic, that one of the nice things about Windows historically was the notion that installation of applications was somewhat standardized: you just run SETUP or stick the disk in and it would automatically install and guide you through the process.
Nowadays, installing a Windows app is anything but easy; you have to shut down everything on the computer and reboot at least once. Un-installing applications is 'iffy' at best, and if something goes wrong, or you need to migrate to another machine or hard drive, most users have to trash everything and re-install everything from scratch.
In reality, Unix has become a lot more standardized and consistent in terms of application management, installation and migration. It's really a lot easier now to remove an app from Unix, whereas with Windows, you never know if you could ever remove a program without leaving tons of remnants and agents clogging things up.
Linux is a true multi-user OS. Windows NT and 2000/XP/2003 are not true multi-user systems. You have to run Terminal services or Citrix to get multi-user functionality.
Also, Linux can behave as a true server node. Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 behaves as a hybrid node. It's both a workstation and a server. Linux can be run without a GUI. This consumes less resources and allows the system to be run simpler. Besides, a server is administered remotely. This makes a desktop seem silly and impractical. And Microsoft bundles alot of stuff that can't be uninstalled (i.e. Internet Explorer, outlook express, etc) without special tools.
I would like to see Windows running on a mainframe, then I would change my judgement maybe.
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.
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
The Microsoft Problem Solving Process;
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....
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
Unix is and never was a system designed to be used by everyday computer users. Windows from the ground up, was designed for just that purpose (although the instablity factor has hurt this aspect to some extent). Now, Apple's new OSX system has proved that this doesn't have to be the case. Meaning a good GUI can make all the difference. However, Apple's OS is a "closed" system (like Windows) and so it doesn't suffer from the "too many cooks in the kitchen" dilema Unix/Linux suffers from.
.NET). What does this all mean? The Ford F150 V8 truck is great for hauling heavy loads, but may not be convenient for mom to use to go to the supermarket when the less powerful but easier to handle 4-cylinder Ford Focus will do.
Honestly, who needs KDE, GNOME, fvwm, fvwm2, fvwm95, IceWm, Enlightenment, Window Maker, BlackBox, CDE... etc??? Too many choices creates too much havoc and not enough time developing ONE COMPLETE SYSTEM. Again, Apple got it right with just Aqua. Unfortunately, all of the above windowing systems (minus Aqua) never really shielded the user from the "raw" system and so the average folk are not going to waste their time learning a half completed GUI when Microsoft's GUI is so polished and mature. Microsoft's GUI is much more powerful in terms of speed, common dialogs, drag and drop, clipboard, ActiveX controls, cut and paste, fonts. Things everyday users take for granted and come to count on (even if they don't know these technologies by name). Unix's command line as we know is unbeatable. But again, most people don't want or need a command line!
The other problem is the lack of good "polished" software in Unix/Linux and (I feel) that is a direct result of poor (or rather outdated) development tools. Programs like gdb, ddd, vi, make and emacs aren't going to cut it anymore in the 21st century. Software is getting too complex and more and more difficult in design to be worrying about figuring out these ancient tools. New generation programmers just aren't attracted to them (and rightfully so) and find themselves crawling back to Visual Studio, which only boosts Microsoft's $$$ once again. Now, KDevelop is a neat tool and certainly is heading in the right direction, but lets face it, it needs tons more work to become anything near VS. Please understand, I love Linux and I'm no fan of Microsoft, but we need to just face the facts here.
So again, your comparing a "FREE" (very stable) system with a limited GUI (or rather GUIs) and limited (in terms of ease of use) development tools. Versus a (less stable) commercial system, with a fully polished GUI and excellent development tools (VB,
I'm *stunned* that I'm the first person to say even if the kernels are similar in the sense that they're monolithic, at least you can roll your own kernel and pull out all the drivers and garbage that you don't need or want. My FreeBSD box can boot in about 15 seconds to XFce (yah, not Linux but at least I can see the source and build from both); no chance XP would boot that fast after loading every driver in existence.
Dislaimer: I base this claim of being first on a content search for the words "build" and "roll" and though I did find one post implying it, I think it bears more attention.
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.