Linux vs. Windows: What's The Difference? 1219
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.'"
The Difference (Score:1, Interesting)
The difference is that one is unstable and easy to use while the other is stable and hard to use.
Seems to me... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:The Difference (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:The Difference (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows becoming more like *nix? (Score:2, Interesting)
- 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?
Repeat After Me (Score:3, Interesting)
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 [faqs.org]: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.
Re:The difference? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Windows copies OS/2. (Score:5, Interesting)
There is only one program that has ever been written from scratch -- "Hello World.". Everything else is just cut and past from that.
Re:It's a vicious cycle (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The Difference (Score:1, Interesting)
Windows wins.
Re:A rushed list... (Score:3, Interesting)
I've yet to place a serious bet with any Windows(tm) fanboy, but lets say you just loaded to the harddrive 300 vacation photos from the digital camera and the task is to scale them all to say, 800x600 pixels. Under Linux, with ImageMagick installed (usually is), all one has to do is:
cd
mogrify --resize 800x600 *
and get a cup of coffee while the computer churns away for a few minutes.
Now, under windows, what other option do you have besides opening all 300 photos in a photo editing program and issue the rescale command for each and every photo?
Re:The Difference (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:The Difference (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Install... (Score:3, Interesting)
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"
Re:An important difference (Score:5, Interesting)
for
Jon.
Re:It's a vicious cycle (Score:5, Interesting)
Despite his talk being biased, I think he got one important point mostly right:
But ultimately, said Russinovich, the gap between the two operating systems will continue to narrow to a point where their underlying kernel becomes irrelevant. "Layered services will become more important," he concluded.
On server space the kernel performance probably counts out more, but at least for most (not all, though) desktop users the kernel really isn't the most important part; it is the common APIs that do the trick. One could build two very similar boxes, one running Linux and the other FreeBSD - both running same apps, with differences hardly noticeable for the end user. Switch the BSD box to Mach kernel, keep userland, and still no much difference. But then just throw Apple's Quartz instead of X on top of that, and we suddenly have totally different world! This is just because we'll now suddenly have a totally different set of APIs.
However - what Russinovich left out - Windows will inevitably be the very last one to jump on this bandvagon, due to Microsoft's policies' closed nature and it's dominant position on the market. Windows just does not have to be compatible with other systems on the market the same way POSIX systems does have to - not at least from it's vendor's viewpoint.
Simply not true (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Difference (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:A rushed list... (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Security ' Windows is much more popular and thus more targetted. It can also be locked down by any competent system admin.
2. Philosophy ' Purchasing proprietary software usually guarantees a level of support, as opposed to relying on the "good will" nature of the community.
3. Stability ' Poorly written applications will crash regardless of the OS.
4. Cost ' Support, training and service fees all need to be considered.
Re:The Difference (Score:5, Interesting)
I didn't mean that to be impugning your abilities, but consider it.
Re:Well, speaking on the article... (Score:4, Interesting)
That is not correct. NT (and hence XP) was designed with the flexibility to support multiple OS Environments. One such option is the POSIX environment which is not a GUI.
So it is optional in both, albeit more optional with Linux because the Win32 environment is the default with XP.
Re:Linux in general (Score:3, Interesting)
It is more difficult to configure, especially for things like automounting CD-ROMs and DVDs, but it boots up a lot faster than my Mandrake 10 box.
The only thing separating it from the more hardcore distros like Gentoo or Debian is the licence. Some people like it better, some don't
"Just download it" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Makes You Wonder.... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Why did you switch to linux in the first place? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:A rushed list... (Score:1, Interesting)
6. Oversupply of self righteous users telling you to learn the commandline
7. Absence of a uniform windowing system that can be used by all apps
Re:A rushed list... (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh... no. Before XP, yes. Now, no. The VMS core makes a difference.
Re:Repeat After Me (Score:2, Interesting)
Rule of Modularity: the 'simple parts' are not so simple- take any linux distribution and type 'man ls' and see how long that is, it will work for anything substituted for ls, certainly not simple.
Rule of Composition: Most new linux apps are not desined to be connected (through a pipe) to anything else-- they are either programs written with curses or for X and that means that they are not connectable
Rule of Parsimony: use ls -l
Guess they are pretty close, after all.
The difference is....... (Score:1, Interesting)
Linux is worth a lot.
For a home user... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:An important difference (Score:5, Interesting)
Additionally, I assume you're referring to SFU or Cygwin when you say you can get real shells on Windows, and there the difference is obvious as soon as you try some filesystem access. Permission thunking between NTFS ACLs and Unix-style perms slows it all down quite a bit, and the funny mounting stuff isn't bulletproof.
My day to be pedantic, I guess.
Re:Uh... VMS Unix System?? (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, there was a book written about the development of NT called Showstopper (I think). NT was Cutler's attempt to redo the VMS kernel, except even better. Overall, one has to admit he did a pretty good job with the kernel. The real problem with Windows isn't the kernel itself but the crap software that's layered on top that's full of security holes.
Re:A rushed list... (Score:1, Interesting)
Linux != Gnome (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:An important difference (Score:2, Interesting)
The main reason viruses run so rampant on Windows is because of user stupidity. Learn what links and applets are safe, and you'll be much better off. When (if?) Linux goes mainstream to the average Joe's computer, we'll see the same thing. Users who know at least a bit about what they're doing will have few problems, while those who open those "Re:fwd:re:I Love You" emails will.
Again, I'm not pro-Windows, and I like and use Linux much more than Windows, I just live in the real world.
Though I guess this is Slashdot.
Microsoft's "development philosophy".. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:the difference? (Score:1, Interesting)
or you are thick
or both.
Re:An important difference (Score:3, Interesting)
C:\WINNT>for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
C:\WINNT>
Re:get over it. (Score:2, Interesting)
Erm.. Security?? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Linux in general (Score:3, Interesting)
You're making the same mistake the author is. You're assuming that an OS can be defined by its superficial appearance. Mac OSX is a desktop operating system. Does that make it identical to Windows? Of course not!
BSD is a server OS
Then why am I using it as a desktop?
Re:An important difference (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Total Cost (Score:3, Interesting)
"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....
Two Different Designs (Score:3, Interesting)
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,
Roll your own kernel?? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Windows isn't neccessarily easier (Score:2, Interesting)