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
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.
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.
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!
Spoken like a true flamethrower! IHBT, but I'll bite anyway. I just installed Mandrake 10 and I'm amazed at the usability -- it's really quite polished.
Drivers are slow to arrive mainly because nearly every single one requires someone to spend a month or two reverse-engineering some proprietary interface. But again, they're not really much of a problem anymore. There are still a few new-ish unsupported devices (the Centrino wireless cards are an example), but the windows compatibility layer takes care of that.
Who says you have to pay for Linux? Go download Fedora, Mandrake, SuSE (the FTP install works great), or even Gentoo or Debian. Same thing without the CDs, and maybe some licensed software.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
1) You can't buy WinXP Home without the hardware for 90, so that's a bad comparison.
,maybe we can talk.
2) Usability still needs some work, but it's progressing very quickly (much quicker than windows did), so people HAVE BEEN working on it for quite a while.
3) Most linux drivers are written by independent developers (with obvious exceptions, nvidia, ATI, several others). MS publishes an API and thousands of companies have to build to it. When most of the drivers that don't ship w/Windows are built in house by MS, then you'll have a decent comparison
SO you're in the majority? That doesn't prove much. If you like Windows, cool, it's your choice and we respect that; Making extremely poor justifications for your choice cost you some of that respect.
Now, you wanna talk about TCO with linux maybe being higher (unix techs cost more), etc.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Mark 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!
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.
(fingers in ears)
"la la la la la I can't hear yooooooou la la la la la la"
Actually, while I don't use Linux because it was free, I use it because I find it better.
But to address your "argument", Linux cost me zero...nothing...nada. Not one dime. Not $30 bucks, not 60, not 90 with a piece of hardware.
As far as usability and driver coverage, everything works fine here....but these are moot points really.
Linux runs fine, Windows runs fine. Some like Linux, some like Windows, some like other OS's. So what? I don't make my choices based on "the Market". The "Market" put things like "Titanic" as the highest grossing movie of all time, does that mean it's the best? We all know market share doesn't automatically mean better. Better comes from application on how it's used. XP is better for you, Linux is better for me...I'm sure there's someone who feels OS/2 is better for them. Who's right? We all are!
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
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
I have to disagree. The majority of home users simply want web browsers, word processors, email clients and the like. All of these are available in a default install of any Linux client. It certainly isn't something that I can send my mom on CD and just say "Here it is, go at it." she wouldn't be able to install Windows on her own either. I have been using Linux as my home OS for 8 years or so, and have never had any reason to switch back. I do, however, keep a Windows box around to play games on. Windows is still the best platform for games, but for any serious use, I find Linux a much better fit.
- "That's just the kind of fuzzy-headed liberal thinking that leads to being eaten."
Sure, downloading Linux ISOs is much faster.
Yeah, home users spend most of their time simulating circuits and writing VHDL.
Jesus saves and takes half damage.
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.
"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.
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