What Differentiates Linux from Windows? 1135
tail.man sent in a Linux Insider piece about the difference between Linux and Windows. Quoting the synopsis "So, what's really the difference between a Unix variant like Linux and any Windows OS? It's that Microsoft reacts to marketing pressure to make design decisions favoring running a few processes faster but then finds itself forced first to layer in backward compatibility and then to engage in a patch-and-kludge upgrade process until the code becomes so bloated, slow and unreliable that wholesale replacement is again called for."
The author, Paul Murphy... (Score:5, Informative)
He's been a Linux advocate for quite a while...
Re:The author, Paul Murphy... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, and for those who don't get this or the parent: ... [reference.com]"
The Difference... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
dtg
Close... (Score:5, Insightful)
Close. Microsoft makes something which runs like and O/S, but includes massive amounts of code for things you may never use, but fill up the disk and memory anyway. It's like the joke that inside every fat person is a skinny person trying to get out, but with Windows there's a bloated pile of software smothering an operating system.
Re:Close... (Score:5, Funny)
"somewhere inside Gnome, there's a small, fast and efficient GUI struggling to get out"
Linux != Redhat (Score:5, Insightful)
some other lean WM. Just because some distros come with large
desktop environments by default doesn't mean you need to
use them.
Re:Close... (Score:4, Funny)
I guess calling Windows an OS here is like cursing in church
Re:The Difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you assume making money and making an effective OS are mutually exclusive?
Re:The Difference... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, Microsoft does make some effective OSes. They may not be superior to Linux (it's arguable as both have strengths and weaknesses), but they are still effective.
Re:The Difference... (Score:5, Informative)
Also if you expect us to believe that after 4 months the machine can't run IE and this is a windows problem, ummm...your on crack, none of us would put up with windows if it completely failed after just a few months. Some of these office machines here at work, are used every day, and are 2 years old, running XP, with end users, lol, and they really are still doing just fine.
Of course I regularly run updates, and my virus scanner updates hourly and runs nightly, but you should do that with any PC.
Re:The Difference... (Score:4, Interesting)
To the login prompt is 42 seconds. After the login prompt is about one minute 12 seconds, but not really windows fault, it has to update my files with server using active directory remote profiles, load up a real time virus scanner, load all of my network drives, load my calendar, and acrotray which is for the full version of adobe acrobat 6. I also offer that this build is only 2 months old, because I recently got this computer as an upgrade to a Pentium 3 1133. I built it myself, and could give you an exact part listing, but as for the OS install, I didn't do anything special, formatted the whole drive as one partition, ran through the install, ran all the updates, and added the system to the domain. ??? Works fantastic. and I have all XP machines here and ussually if we have a problem it when XP has to deal with running a program designed for like windows 95. and still uses hard coded LPTs for printing purposes. But other than that, I run a clean network, I do spam and virus detection at the email server, preventing worms from getting opened in email. And all in all, few problems.
This isn't a troll, I am just seriously tired of this constant anti windows shit, I think it's mostly based on the older OSs NT, and 98, but since 2000 I feel they have been doing a superb job, and when I bought XP pro moving from 2000 I really liked the upgrade.
I used to use a SGI for autocad, but then we moved to dual Proc Dells, and I really liked it. I do still use Linux, for my e-mail, and web server at home, but only because I didn't want to buy 2000 server, and I thought Linux works well as a server. Personally I used it as a desktop for years, but constant kernel updates, and having to compile every damn thing before I could use it, turned me off. THe linux community should learn to offer binary executables and source because I simply just don't like the hassle of the extra step.
Here comes the mod down. and there is nothing I can do about it. People hate me for my opinion, but I can't be like most of the people here, claim to hate windows and promote linux, but secretly use XP all the time.
Re:The Difference... (Score:5, Interesting)
What are you blethering about? Provision of binary executables is the purpose of GNU/Linux distributions.
I have not run Windows at home for about five years, and I don't miss it in the slightest. I have a server for NFS, web, mail and other bits and bobs. I have an IBM Thinkpad which is my main work horse. I have an ancient Toshiba Libretto hooked up to my amplifier for playing music.
All of these run Debian. I can't remember the last thing I had to compile by hand; Debian has so many packages prebuilt that I rarely have to build something myself. Either it's already there, or something else is there that does the same job.
If I do need to compile somthing, Debian ensures I don't end up in dependency hell because almost all Free libraries are packaged. I grant you - RedHat used to be a pain. Trying to compile an up-to-date Gnome 1.0 for RedHat 5.1 was the last straw that switched me over to a distro built by it's users. But I'm pretty sure RedHat is much better these days anyway.
My day job desktop is Windows NT 4.0 SP6 and I get through the day but it can hardly be called convenient. It's so lowest-common-dominator that I end up installing all sorts of utilities that are missed out in the shipped OS. I fear Windows XP because I don't want to work in a cartoon.
And finally, I bathe in the warmth of the freedom of GNU/Linux. I don't have to invoke it much, but I know that if I do have to, I can get the source and fix it. Thanks Linus, RMS, et al.
Re:The Difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
My network card drivers were source only, my drivers I recieved for my sound card were source I had to compile and then it didn't support digital audio, Ummm...actually only a few things didn't come as source.
And if you haven't run windows in 5 years, you really wouldn't miss it, because you can't even comprehend how far its come.
That's like saying, I had a 386PC it wasn't very fast so I am sticking to my Dual Processor G5, it's much faster. Your comparing oranges, to old apples, you bought 4 years ago. Maybe you should try a nice K7 Athlon system running XP, even from 2000 to XP, the OS came a long way.
Re:The Difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
The article speaks quite a bit about how Microsoft if forced to build in back-compatibility in an inefficient manner. Every OS has to deal with back-compatibility to a certain extent, but consider how much more important it is to a company like Microsoft.
They have a business model that could easily be described as based on market share with both business users and home users "feeding" each other's compatibility needs. The business user many be more reluctant to upgrade than the home user because reliability, transition problems and cost have different consequences for both types, yet both have large numbers of current and legacy OS users.
Consider Linux. Upgrade issues remain, but cost is negligible with home users and can be attractive (or not; depends on too many things) to business users as well. However the OS itself (with the more modern code) is available and access to the software itself is not a significant cost issue. Thus, no absolute need for "kludges" to keep older OS's ( or more typically older paid programs from other vendors) running, while a significant number of truly ancient CPUs can also run an effective, compatible "family" *NIX Operating System and necessary software.
Microsoft got where it is on marketshare; it's maintaining it's current income on marketshare, and it pegs it's future on marketshare. It drives every effort from code to sales to lobbying. That marketshare requires users to implicitly agree to paid upgrades of MS and third party software.
Although a given Linux distro does have marketshare interests, a user that switches to a competitive Linux distro is not the end of the world; potential new users far exceed current users, the user hasn't really changed his way of working, and hasn't invested in new hardware. He's still there for future growth.
I think the cost of upgrading of the two OS's plays a significant role in the way they are coded, designed, and implemented. Linux advocates may be just a little blind to it, because it's not a consideration that drives the development process; Microsoft's corporate coders can never lose sight of it, and it does drive the code, design, and implementation.
Windows is Not an Operating System... (Score:4, Interesting)
More precisely, OS is the tertiary product. Their primary product is a solid, supported, consistent API to attract and retain developers. The secondary product is a slick user interface for their desktop API.
In all practial aspects, for most people Linux is a Unix-like environment first, an OS second, and any semblence of a desktop API or slick desktop environment is not really all that important.
Microsoft could sell Win32 on Linux without too much pain... it would not be the first time they changed OSes for their environment.
Re:The Difference... (Score:4, Funny)
It's simple. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't tell me that Linux is easier to use and install hardware drivers for than Windows.
While I know that we are all Windows haters it does do quite a few things rather well. It isn't used by so many people because it is *completely* inferior. It serves its purpose.
Re:It's simple. (Score:5, Informative)
unless you have a non-supported hardware item (Score:5, Insightful)
or a printer
or a pen tablet
etc etc
windows: go to mfr website, download install file, run install file, (maybe) reboot. Proceed with using hardware.
Linux: go to mfr website...unsupported (dam), go to linux geek site(s)...hmmm no luck, go to google...hmm no luck, go to another linux site - helpful geek says "just download this source, read your device specs, change these numbers accordingly, compile to your kernel with this line: (insert big ass command line here) and you should be ok; tries it...works partially (not all features utilized or available). crap. *heavy sigh* *gives up*
user boots to windows...
Re:unless you have a non-supported hardware item (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, but what happens when the device is no longer supported for Windows? If you have a non-supported hardware item for any OS you face the exact same problem.
Sure, all the crap you buy at Office Depot or Best Buy will probably have Windows drivers for it, and maybe not for Linux, but big fucking deal. Most of that crap won't work in an SGI or Alpha box, and I doubt the crap you buy at those places will come with drivers for anything but Windows, even at the manufacturers' website.
If you can't do some research before hand on what works with what, you have no one to blame but your self.
I have three scanners, eight printers a serial pen tablet and a USB tablet that ALL work in Linux, but don't in BeOS.... Should I get on Slashdot and cry about it? No, If I want devices that work with BeOS, I go out and do some research until I find the device that does work with BeOS.
I also have a bunch of components (video cards, network cards, etc.) that I can't get to work in Windows, even after cruising the mfg's website, but work perfectly fine in Linux. Why you might ask? They are Macintosh parts.
Not trying to flame, just point out that not everything works in every OS.
Re:It's simple. (Score:5, Interesting)
The rest of it, the "Lunix never crashes because of open-source!" I don't especially buy into.
Re:It's simple. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's simple. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, there are cases when things do not necessarily work that way. Take for instance Sony's Betamax video system. It was (and is) far superior to the JVC VHS system, but due to financial dealings with the movie industry (adult film industry, more than likely...), VHS ended up taking over the market, virtually pushing Betamax (and the Philips System 2000 too, for that matter!) out of the marketplace.
Re:It's simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
As for ease of use, that's arguable. I've used Windows since 3.0 and find the continually changing and inconsistant user interface frustrating. I find Linux much much easier to use on a regular basis.
Re:It's simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't tell me that Linux is easier to use and install hardware drivers for than Windows.
As many people will attest, Linux works quite well out of the box. I think you are refering to the fact that hardware manufacturers often write WinXX drivers but not Linux drivers; this is entirely a market share decision, based on limited developer time. Windows, natively, does not support hardware better than Linux. I would argue Linux does, because I have gotten far more random BSOD's from Windows. One of my biggest complaints with Win2k was how sloooooow it got as I added additional hardware. Linux was not as easily encumbered.
While I know that we are all Windows haters it does do quite a few things rather well. It isn't used by so many people because it is *completely* inferior. It serves its purpose.
I don't think it does anything "rather well"; it does the bare minimum. People have accepted Windows' flaws because they have to, but the flaws are tremendous.
The reason WinXX is so popular is primarily because of marketing; it wasn't "better" than OS/2, it was better marketed. Over time, people who did not use computers ran Microsoft software because that was what came loaded on OEM boxes. OEM's loaded Microsoft software because that is what people wanted for compatibility with their friends. It had nothing to do with Windows being a better product.
Re:It's simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
For non-trivial things, though, I have scads of problems just like the grandparent. He's right: the key difference between Windows and Linux is ease of hardware and software installation. Time and again I have problems with dependencies and searching down different versions of this or that library, or circular reference dependency problems such as MySQL needs Perl which needs MySQL-DBI which can't be installed without MySQL. Or trying to get a real video card working, and having XFree ask you 100 questions about your monitor frequencies, only to finally barf to text mode when it's show time.
Many things are wonderful and easy in Linux, but installing hardware and software is 50 times as difficult in Linux as it is in Windows.
Re:It's simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
If I wanted to install mysql, I would enter (as root, on Mandrake): and the computer would take care of figuring out the dependencies, downloading everything off the internet, verifying the digital signatures, and installing the software onto my system.
Likewise, if I want to install Postgres, I would enter and again, it would take care of everything. If you're doing more work than this, then you're not doing it right. And I would argue that this is easier than the equivalent on Windows.
Re:It's simple. (Score:5, Interesting)
In windows there are many more levels, but fewer pieces of hardware in the Just doesn't work at all category.
I remember buying a server once that was designed for Linux use and trying to upgrade from Mandrake 7.2 to 8.0 I think it was, and finding that the driver for the disk controller only existed in binary form on the install disks and that only worked with the kernels in Redhat 6.2
Re:It's simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm IBM, SGI and lots of other profit-oriented companies have contributed code to Linux. Do they actually believe in "freedom"? Why not opensource all of their products?
Re:It's simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
My God, what a mindless mob of moderators we have today.
I've got mod points now, but rather than pointlessly mod down the parent, I've eschewed them to say this: How in the name of Linus's bumcheeks is reiterating business common sense -- try to dominate the market with your product -- insightful?
Do you not think that market dominance is not an appropriate goal for Linux? Do you think that the principal designers of NT are only interested in market control? You can't put together a operating system with marketing fiends using Powerpoint? (well, maybe windows 95 was a result of that).
Anyone care to back me up on this? Am I completely deluded?
- Oisin
Re:It's simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect." -- Linus
I don't think it should be a goal. I think the goal should be to design a stable, secure and efficent kernel. If it gains market dominance in the process, so much the better, but that should not be one of the main driving forces.
>> Do you think that the principal designers of NT are only interested in market control?
No, but I believe the team in charge of marketing it is. And the CEO... and the people that actually get to make the decisions....
>> Am I completely deluded?
No more than myself, or any other regular slashdot reader.... :P
Re:It's simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
Innovation in technology isn't necessarily a great thing. For every Macintosh you have your NeXT. Heck, even the Mac was just derivative of PARC's work. Linux plays it conservative and just does what it does.
Re:It's simple. (Score:3, Insightful)
Excellent (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
The point that did come up multiple times, Microsoft has to rewrite large portions of windows code to take on new features, which make it incompatible with older software. While Unix based OS's can run older versions of software.
Linux (or BSD/etc) is more modular and can build on newer, better OS implementations. Paging file techniques, VM engines, OS Schedulers, etc.
It's more of a design philosophy article.
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Interesting)
*Practically* speaking, that's a crap argument. I haven't seen any linux distros installing libc5 support by default recently. Which means old libc5 apps won't run (unless they happened to be statically linked). I even seem to recall some pain in the glibc 2.0->2.1 transition. Or how about trying to install some older rpms on a shiny new distribution? It's about a 50-50 shot that it works.
Microsoft has to rewrite large portions of windows code to take on new features, which make it incompatible with older software.
The larger problem is that backwards compatability seems to be directly proportional to bloat. Microsoft's problem is that since they aren't a "distribution" per se, they can't even attempt to fix all your executables to use new libraries as they're developed. And then when they (finally) remove or fix obsolete/broken libraries anyway, shit breaks. Then they get blamed for 'intentionally' breaking other vendors' programs. It isn't actually their fault (..sometimes).
Really, I always thought MS bent over backwards to err on the side of "bloat" whenever possible. Which is why you have the DOS virtual machine and the win16 API etc.
Re:Excellent (Score:4, Insightful)
These arguments are always stupid anyway. It really depends on what you mean by "superior." If you mean, who controls more market - as superior usually means in a business sense - the Microsoft is by far superior to all other operating systems. If you mean superior as in gets what you want done, and linux gets what you want done.. then Linux is superior to you, so why should you care what Microsoft is doing at all? I don't get it, and never have.
I personally don't run Linux. I have a lot of quirky particularities in various Windows software that I admire too much to give up. But I don't run around wondering what "those Linux people" are up to all the time, constantly trying to dig up dirt.. or gloating at an open source failure.
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Interesting)
This article articulates very well the opinion I've come to hold, since being network and sys admin for about 300 Solaris and 2 or 300 NT machines for about 4 years.
My point of contention is that Microsoft built its legacy on home users, and "amatuer" (for lack of a better adjective) operating systems. Sun, HP and the other enterprise OS companies built it for business. I pitty anyone who relies on M$ servers for their bread and butter. I was talking to a DB manager for a M$ shop, that manages 7 terabytes of data. I complained how we had to bounce Oracle about once a month, and it was always the middleware failing. He laughed, and said, "We have to reboot the M$ DB _daily_ and reboot the whole machine". We only had to restart the middleware processes (e.g. ps -ef | grep middlware....kill ...and the processes would automatically kick back off) and were back up and running in seconds, without affecting other DB processes on the box running.
This speaks volumes.
Those who don't know any better will keep their opinions for their own camp (either M$ or *nix) and those who've been on both sides are probably too busy to weigh in here anyway. (I'm out of it now, so I have more time :-)
John
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Excellent (Score:4, Insightful)
Software doesn't have to crash. There are systems that can run for years with no maintenance; Microsoft just doesn't make them. Instability is not a necessary part of technology.
Outside of business... (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows has driver support (Score:4, Insightful)
K-12 institutions receive lots of donated hardware. How do you make, for example, a donated scanner work with GNU/Linux if SANE lists it as unsupported? Do you reserve a Windows box just for that scanner and a few other donated peripherals that the community hasn't yet figured out how to get to work with a Free operating system?
Re:Windows has driver support (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Windows has driver support (Score:5, Interesting)
The Difference. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The Difference. (Score:4, Insightful)
The other side (Score:4, Insightful)
As opposed to Unix, where the design is so open and extensible that anything is possible, yet there is no coherent interface and none of the non-server applications work or look as good as they do on Macintosh or Windows.
Simplicity (Score:5, Insightful)
Net result is that you might get something done quickly, but you still won't understand how the thing works. This is not optimal, especially for critical systems.
Nobody understands Windows. I for one don't even want to understand it.
Re:Simplicity (Score:5, Insightful)
No-one understands Windows, but anyone can use it. Linux is simple, but few can use it.
Linux has good genes (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's not begin the quarrel of which OS has the ~better~ GUI. The point is that although a GUI can be well-designed, it will by its very nature be a greater burden on the OS than a command typed at the prompt. It's a performance burden, it's a design burden, it's a maintenance burden for the development team. (Axiom: The more complex software becomes, the less even its creators and maintainers understand it.) Eventually it produces a Support burden because users know dulcet coital nothing about their computers.
Then bring in the Internet. Make it very popular. Hell, make it commercial. People are learning that you can get things done quickly with Linux. UNIX was networking when Bill Gates was battling pimples.
Linux builds on the better tradition. So it's not just the cost, but the design philosophy of Linux that is beating Windows.
Rewrites necessary (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows 2003 wouldn't be possible if 90% of its codebase was from the WinNT 3.1 kernel.
Even Macs - OSX is so completely different than OS9 that they can't even be compared fairly. OS9 was dead in the water before it came out - the rewrite of the OS (albeit on the BSD kernel) was necessary to allow Mac to continue to compete at all.
Re:Rewrites necessary (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think anyone says this but.. (Score:5, Interesting)
just my 2 pence
Tim
Re:I don't think anyone says this but.. (Score:3, Interesting)
For e.g. can Windows allow the following things...
Change network configurations on the fly. which may include , changin domains, sub domains, IP addresses etc, and not having to reboot ?
Restart the windowing system parameters on the fly, i.e. update the video card drivers and not rebbot.
Windows still require a lot of rebooting for tasks which can be done very easily in linux, just by reloading kernel mod
Re:I don't think anyone says this but.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows Linux
Usable +--Unusable
Insecure--+ Secure
Re:I don't think anyone says this but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ie, the only thing that seperates Linux from Windows is that Linux is the Better high Hurdler while Windows has the Superior high jump.
now, from repeated training in the off season, Windows has lowered it Hurdle times while Linux has increased its vertical jump.
both have gained ground on each other.
What no wants to hear but should be said ... (Score:5, Insightful)
i guess (Score:3, Funny)
Windows is Easier To Install and Use (Score:3, Insightful)
This is exactly the problem with Linux. A Linux user spends(well wastes) most of his time just trying to get a simple thing like an office suite to work, where as the Windows user can happily go about doing whatever he wants to do.
Linux is good for the geeks. But for the normal everyday man, Linux is no alternative for Windows.
I am a Linux user: that's my personal preference. But I don't see many of my friends ever using it. Quite a lot of them are very computer literate. Why don't they want to use linux?
simple because they want to use a computer as a tool, and not as a source of frustration.
Bah. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's possible to have a good experience setting up Linux - and it's likely if you know what you're doing and you know what things mean. If you don't, there's a good possibility you'll dig yourself into a hole and not even know it.
I just installed Mandrake on a machine a couple months ago. The little Samba config utility just didn't work. I didn't know why. I still don't. Anywho, I knew how to use Samba from the command line so it ended up not being a problem for me - but for another guy it would have been a complete showstopper. They just couldn't have used it for its intended purpose.
Watch yourself use Linux. Be honest about the number of times you do something not entirely intuitive.
the amount of support they had to do reduced and for those times their parents couldnt fix it they could ssh right in
You've given a good example. SSH right in, eh? Imagine how meaningful those letters would be to a new user.
To do the same task under Windows XP, you'd click "Remote Assist" - and you could assist intuitively by acting on that machine the same way you act on your own. Sure, you could use VNC too - if you know what VNC is, how to enable it, and all that.
Linux is easy to use if you know what you're doing. If you're lucky, it's easy to use even if you don't - but as things currently are you'll run up against that learning curve sometime if you're really going to use the thing. Windows isn't amazing here either, but it's further down the road to usability.
My digital camera, scanner and adsl modem "just work", so do the nic cards in my partner and I's machines
If you buy the right camera, it'll work. But some won't. You may disagree, but I've tried and failed a few times with cameras (which by itself is evidence that it is more difficult than under Windows - even if it is eventually possible).
And you won't get the manufacturers programs to manage your photos. That's a plus for me - but again it's a crippling failure for others. It means the manual that came with their camera is useless.
You're just not seeing things from a new user's eyes here.
Boils down to (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows: easy to configure, easy to break
Linux: difficult to configure, difficult to break
Don't get me wrong, I use both, its an apples to oranges comparison. The question is what do you want to do with it? A MS firewall is unconsiderable, but so is the thought of putting Linux on my sisters desktop.
It's obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, we have an O/S that works with X86, and now works on everything from calculators and old gaming consoles to some of the largest supercomputing clusters in the world.
Anybody who says that Linux isn't inherently more robust and flexible at the critical core areas is living their life under a rock.
They're just Different. (Score:5, Interesting)
But to be slightly OT...
It sort of reminds me of something
I've always wanted to write a book talking about how the two camps actually need each other. Microsoft would have more to fear from an open source windows variant than any threat Linux could ever bring.
ReactOS is an open source windows clone (Score:5, Informative)
It's still in development, but you can boot it and run some programs on it already.
Lin vs. Win, from the middle-aged perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Lin vs. Win, from the middle-aged perspective (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Lin vs. Win, from the middle-aged perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
Only that's not true. It is a professional system made by its users, while MS Windows is a substandard one made by hired coders commanded by marketers trying to please the users' managers. Got the difference?
The only GNU/Linux minus is time: it takes time to get it right. There is no reason why, say, Debian GNU/Linux with Gnome can't reach all the same qualities of MS Windows without loosing any benefits. That is, apart from the fact that security is inherently opposed to convenience. There are things that will always be more difficult simply to keep security; on the other hand the basic design is so much simpler that the complexity coming from security can easily be offset, especially if we eventually follow the GNU/Hurd road to Lisp system programming and the Gnome road to database storage as the filesystem engine.
This is a red herring. Gnome is already quite consistent, and has most apps one needs. 2.6 will need even less non-Gnome apps, such as Gnome PDF viewer being nearly as feature-complete as XPDF or Adobe Acrobat Reader for instance. It will take a few years, but there is no reason why OpenOffice.org, LyX and such foreign software won't be totally Gnome-ised and immature software such as Passepartout or Gnome PDF won't become full-featured.
Another red herring. In fact, it is much easier to integrate GNU/Linux, because it tends to follow open standards and even to create new open standards, instead of being subject to MS's bad case of NIHS. MS integrates well only with MS or other mature proprietary MS-platform software, but not with non-MS-platform software.
Centralisation would buy you precisely nothing, and would cost much. With centralisation things would move slower, be less flexible...
Consistency is yet another non-issue. Gnome and KDE are still pretty immature, but they are consistent. The fact that you can run Qt apps in Gnome and Gtk+ ones in KDE, and text and Motif or Athena or whatever in both, is a bonus.
In fact it has been argued that if we had had a single widget set since the dawn of X, now we'd have tons of obsolete software. As widgets were never a given, people have designed their apps to be easily ported to new ones, and now we have the luxury of apps that play well with lotsa them. For example, with GNU Emacs we've curses and Motif already, and will have Gtk+ soon; with LyX we have Qt and XForms already, and someone was porting to Gtk+... MS Windows apps so old as these were already rewritten or are dead or have become bloated, choose any number of these three options.
It is happening all the time, but the cultural gap is simply too big. Microsoft will only be able to cross it by ceasing to be Microsoft. In this sense the decision by the courts not to break Microsoft in several companies (games and content, OS, tools, apps, servers) was against MS own shareholders' best interests in the long term. But this is a decision shareholders could have taken without the courts.
As I've shown it is not about balance, but about GNU maturing.
History (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted, this analysis is a little superficial but I think it's true in a broad sense.
Definition... (OT) (Score:5, Funny)
While he was in New York on location for Bronco Billy (1980), Clint Eastwood agreed to a television interview. His host, somewhat hostile, began by defining a Clint Eastwood picture as a violent, ruthless, lawless, and bloody piece of mayhem, and then asked Eastwood himself to define a Clint Eastwood picture.
"To me," said Eastwood calmly, "what a Clint Eastwood picture is, is one that I'm in."
Simple: Pet projects (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows on the other hand is sterile and ferile. No one is personally involved in one particular aspect (at least for very long, comparitively speaking.) So you get mountains of code that, once written, are rarely re-thought. They work, they go through testing, and until some new function is needed for it or some vulnerability found, never given a second thought.
Think Bit Rot.
Linux Zealots (Score:3, Interesting)
It turns people off Macs, and it can do the same for Linux.
Good description of Linux IPC (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a good description of Linux inter-application communication. Linux is still stuck with a antiquated pre-object model of interprocess communication that's based on pipes, signals, forking, and sockets. The Linux/Unix world has never been able to come up with a good answer to COM/DCOM/Active-X. CORBA never caught on. The window managers and OpenOffice have totally different approaches to inter-application communication. In typical Linux fashion, there's an attempt to hack a "gateway" between the two, rather than standardize.
Because of this Mess Underneath, most interprocess communication is done by adding a bloated layer on top, usually at the language level. This leads to hacks like Java RMI, or the Mozilla "platform".
Cut and paste sucks because the infrastructure needed to do it right is missing.
It's ownership (Score:5, Funny)
SCO owns the code to Linux
any questions? /puts on flamesuit/
main difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows is an OS driven by the desire for profit and more widespread use.
* ease of use
* compatibility with hardware/programs
* small learning curve
Linux is driven by a desire to create a more 'better' operating system with a desire for more configurability.
* longer learning curve
* more versatile
* not intended for the average user (and will not be anytime in the near future)
* more concentration on bug fixes and security, and less on user-friendliness
there are commercial companies obviously that sell linux, but mainstream usage is not #1 priority for the main developers, therefore it is a hard sell for the linux distribution vendors
Re:main difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on what your definition of average user is. We have 20 Linux desktops where I work. We went straight from Windows to Linux. These are not tech people, they are customer service and sales reps for a mail order company. These people had no problem learning the new system. That was our definition of the average user.
The focus needs to be on business use - once everyone is using it at work, the home users will follow. Linux is perfect for business - your secretary or sales rep shouldn't be installing hardware or upgrading apps anyway. That should be the responsibility of the IT personnel.
Differentiating Windows and Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
OTOH, that simplicity in installing apps makes Windows extremely vulnerable as well. Doesn't take much effort to run/install anything off the Internet. Spyware can cling onto your system without much consent at all.
That brings up the major difference I've seen so far. Worms, Viruses, Trojans, Keyloggers, and other forms of malware don't seem to find their way into my Linux machine. The rest of my family who run Windows, though, get infected too many times for my liking.
Is that because most Linux users know to watch out for those types of things while Windows users can be painted with the "AOLer" stereotype? That's probably a factor. But so is the general architecture of not putting yourself in danger for the sake of convenience -- by running mail programs and browsers with enough privs to bork a system.
Cheaper, more secure, and absolutely transparent. Many thanks to everyone who makes OSS possible -- from the programmers and QA testers to the advocacy groups and spokespeople. (and the large corporations backing Open Source)
Re:Differentiating Windows and Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
I nuked the DLL's the worm installed. I nuked the registry entries. I even got it to the point that it doesn't reset his web page every time he opens explorer. But deep down, some dll was over-written, and it's not coming up on virus scans, and good luck tracking down md5 hashes of internet explorer components.
I introduced him to Mozilla, and implored him to sin no more.
Re:Differentiating Windows and Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
THIS is the reason Linux doesn't get raped from viruses/worms the way Windows machines do.
The common argument is that Linux lacks viruses because it's not popular. That's partially true. But this is usually accompanied with the false implication that, if Linux were more popular, it would have the same virus problems as Windows. And that's not true. Viruses would fail to be as easily effective. You can find a hole in an email client and bork the email client, but that's as far as you'll get. Linux isn't bulletproof, and the best virus writers could come up with some successes, but it would be nothing like Windows - where most of these recent viruses take advantage of "features" as much as bugs.
the differeince? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Unix philosophy: build tools which do one or a few things very well (and are trivial to develop, debug, and maintain) and build upon them.
I have yet to detect anything resembling a philosophy in the 'other' place. It seems to be build a single big-ass swiss army knife application (which doesn't seem to do anything very well).
Code Bloat - I am sure of it! (Score:3, Insightful)
What is code bloat? Evidently, it involves kludging, which is mentioned several times. Is this one programmer attacking another's style or is this a non-programmer playing a religion card?
IANA Historian, but the "Defenestration" of Prague is what started the 30 Years War, over religions' control of govenrment. I certainly hope this is not the way the author sees the IT world.
Anyone here ever worked on a project which was perfectly clean and well commented? Show of hands? I thought not.
The terms "Code bloat" and "kludging" has been tossed around quite a bit over the years about Microsoft without anyone producing any source code examples until some were recently lifted and shared.
It would not take me long to look on any project source tree to find some code, which, IMHO, I thought was "kludged"
Mod Troll -1 (Score:5, Funny)
it's gonna be a big list (Score:3, Informative)
Bug fixes are out faster and bugs are found faster and dealt with unlike Microsoft (e.g. that vulnerability that Microsoft sat on for months before word got out, etc.). Another example, though is old, is the old port 139 vulnerability (Ping of Death). The fix for linux was out within hours while Microsoft took days (if not more).
And with KDE, WINE, etc. Linux is getting some of the benefits (the GUI) of Windows without the baggage and the disadvantages.
It's too bad there's no version of Visual Studio
Preaching to the choir (Score:3, Interesting)
I would guess at least 90% of the readers of
Article=junk (Score:5, Insightful)
1. You'd think a journalist could write a more coherent and jargon-free paragraph, but maybe that's just me?
2. Asking what Windows vs. *nix does different is too broad. You can ask this question literally forver - if you keep abstracting down further and futher. Once again, vague journalism.
3. Ok, you can flame me (as if I would deny you that) but I don't think Linux zealots are in any position to say that windows is any less bloated than Linux. Mandrake 10.0 community from just yesterday's is 2.1 gigabytes (re: torrent), most of which is unnecessary for 95% use. Suppose I manage to start the install from CD1 without having CD2 or CD3, well I *hope* there's not a package required by default that is on CD2 or CD3.
4. Microsoft runs a few processes faster and others slower? I think he needs to define what he means by processes. Because I dont think he's using the same terminology as the rest of us when we say 'process'. Once again, too vague.
until the code becomes so bloated, slow and unreliable
5. Is the code bloated, or are the features bloated? Or are the features bloated and the code that composes those features bloated? Once again, too much abstraction.
I think I'll stop here.
OOh! Ooh! Mr Kotter! I know!!! (Score:3)
Um Windows and OSX are all USER FRIENDLY (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not a programmer. I use my computer to work on projects that require typing, graphics, spreadsheets, browsing the net, watching movies, and I want to do it without having to install/setup anything. And if I do need to install somethign I just want to click the "install" file and hit "ok" and run the "shortcut" thats been put on my desktop. Windows and OSX does that, Linux has you jumping through 100 different hurdles to ge tthe simplest things to work the way you want.
It's all about the Software (Score:5, Interesting)
An operating system is an operating system is an operating system is an operating system. It's only purpose is to provide you, the user, a human-readable interface and control system for the computer's hardware and software.
How Linux, other UNIXen, and Windows handle this, however, is the big question to me when someone asks me the question that the article posed.
Applications designed for Windows are just that--developers typically use programming tools that create apps which are hardware-and-operating-system-specific. Barring an emulator such as Virtual PC (funny, that's owned now by Microsoft, too), Windows applications simply will not operate unless it has a conventional Intel-style PC hardware architecture running a specific flavor of Windows. And nope, your 16-bit Windows apps will likely break in Windows XP, so you have to hunt and peck for the app that works in the OS you have.
The UNIX family has things differently. UNIX-family applications are frequently hardware-agnostic and non-operating system-specific. You could be running Solaris, or FreeBSD, or Mandrake, or SuSE, or Darwin, or Mac OS X--generally, the code just works. (Plenty of exceptions, like OpenOffice ports to Mac OS X, but a version does work now in OS X's X11 environment, to take an example.)
Where you would walk into a computer store to buy Windows software, a *NIX user could download the source code for an application and compile it, or build it to work for their particular operating system and platform. Of course, we could buy the source code from a store as well, or the binaries for our platform, if a software maker distributed most of the UNIX software in that format. Currently, the inability of a home Linux user to visit CompUSA for the latest UNIX application is among the greatest challenges to *NIX as a popular home desktop OS (Mac OS X's inroads notwithstanding).
Nevertheless, I can download most BSD and many UNIX and Linux source code from my Mac OS X (BSD variant) workstations, compile it, and use it, without problem or complant. Windows users generally aren't compiling squat--they have to buy or find the already-assembled binaries that run within Windows--and pray that those versions of the binaries were compiled with their Windows version (and patch version, and service pack version) in mind.
The best example of a well-written application that doesn't particularly care about platform (at least in terms of its data files--binaries must still be obtained) is BioWare's Neverwinter Nights [bioware.com] game series. It works on Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux. While the two expansion packs for the original game haven't yet been released in an official Mac version yet, because BioWare designed the game's data to be platform-agnostic, many impatient Mac users have figured out. without a lot of hassle, how to install the game expansions using the Linux versions of the games.
Windows is a proprietary operating system, and any applications written for it feed into that mold. The UNIX world is literally open in its design and flexibility. Don't confuse "open" for "Open Source," however--that's another (related) story.
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, my ex girlfriend sent me a screensaver she made with photos and video clips on Mac OSX (another unix varient), and lemme tell ya, she is no 1337 "power user". As outrageous as it sounds, I sometimes I think we give Windows a little too much credit in the usability department.
Big Difference! (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a huge difference between the two.
When I install new hardware on my WinXp machine, I turn it on and go grab a cup of coffee. By the time I get back my desktop is ready to use.
When I install new hardware on my Linux machine, I go get coffee first. It's gonna be a while....
This is LinuxInsider, remember. (Score:4, Interesting)
Now this article. The tagline paragraph atop the article tips me off that it isn't even PRETENDING to be objective. The article feels like an over-the-top attempt to compensate for kissing SCO's ass a week ago. There are several things I could call this article--journalism is not one of them. The whole publication appears extremely contrived. I wouldn't listen to a single word they publish.
Do not read LinuxInsider.
--
Re:Its all about the floppy disk (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Its all about the floppy disk (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Its all about the floppy disk (Score:3, Interesting)
You may not have to "mount" and "unmount" but it's not like these operations don't exist in Windows. The difference is that Windows will hide this ope
Re:Mozilla Crash@? (Score:5, Funny)
I'll AOL that.
Actually, this is a good opportunity to pinpoint all those Internet Exploder users within the slashdot community and excommunicate them once and for all.
Knowing you will be rooted (Score:3, Insightful)
I have the same sort of nightmares about linux and I do about going to work without any pants on. Few people are experts enough to really know how to lock down their boxes and keep them up to date on linux. So you always worry you forgot you pants (did I enable SSH-KEYS over an NFS network? oops no pants. Is this apache module up to
Re:As a die-hard Windows - 1 Year Debian convert.. (Score:3, Informative)
* Games (of course)
You actually get better preformance in most Linux games compared to their Windows counterpart (i get 20+ fps in nwn). Besides, you can use kernel sources especially designed for gaming to improve the experiene even more, so you can cross out the Games part.
What? (Score:3, Insightful)
As a KDE developer I would like to know what is missing? I don't use windows much, I don't even have it at home, and I can't think of everything. What is missing? What are you looking for? You just sent an accusation to use without backing it up, and we can't tell if you are a troll; have a real concern that we need to address; or just are missing some part of KDE.
Okay, I'm not a big KDE developer, but I have done some work with it. I can write a new KDE app to solve your problem, if it can be done.