linux/windows: the fundamental difference?

[Chris1274]

This isn't meant to start a flame war about which one is better ...

Having switched over to Ubuntu about a month ago, if someone were to ask me, "So what's the difference between Linux and Windows?" I could easily enough point to this or that feature, but I'd like to be able to say what the essential difference is between them as operating systems. Not so much what you can do with them but with what they are. I'm interested in the Socratic question, "What makes Linux to be Linux, and how is that different from what makes Windows to be Windows?" Is it the kernel architecture? Is it just that one is open-source while the other is closed-source?

So if you were asked to summarize, in a few sentences, the essence of a Linux OS and contrast it with the Windows OS, how would you do it?

[oldsoundguy]

File system is the #1 difference. (the way files are stored and handled .. no fragmentation of files!)

Means of installing applications/programs.
(and the fact that installs are stand alone .. no REGISTRY files, thus no REGISTRY errors and no need to reboot every time a program is installed.)

Only have items installed that are needed for operation .. everything else can be changed.

Security

User enabled customization.

Down time for cleaning and maintenance.

Just a few of MANY differences.

(OH, and then there is the COMMUNITY! Something Windows will NEVER have!)

[bowens44]

For me:

Windows: Commercial(expensive)/Closed Source
vs
Linux: Free/Open source

[Bachstelze]

The difference is that Linux is Linux and Windows is Windows. It's like asking what's the difference between red and blue.

[M93]

the difference is that
windows have to be bought, u have to buy software(office, antivirus..etc), have nothing for support but support pages and adding to all this its not secure and can be hacked in minutes

linux is free, u can have as much software and programes as ur hdd can handle as its for free and can be easily removed with no extra files being stored for no reason(like in windows!) and most important thing after its UNIX coded, it has a Community and u get support for ppl who either had ur problem before and got them solved or from the ppl who solved the same problem before

[akoskm]

Here is a really good article (imho) about Linux and about those differences:http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm.

[blur xc]

I'm sorry, and I mean no offence, but the answers so far, imho, are pretty crappy...

I read some information before, but I can't recall exactly where I saw it...but here's what I remember:

#1- *nix (unix like operating systems) were designed from the ground up, way back 40 years ago, when MS wasn't even a twinkle in Bill Gate's eye (maybe, maybe not), as a multi-user, multi-tasking operating system. Windows was not. From what I read, MS version of multi user is a duct tape add-on compared to the way *unix os's do it... dunno if that's true.

#2- I also read somwhere (can't find it right now) that the way Linux handles software and drivers is better than windows. something to do with layers or some crap like that, that prevents a software problem from bringing down the whole system. I know Windows was really bad about that, years ago. When something crashed, I almost always had to reboot to make it work good again, but in recent years I haven't had that problem as much.

#3- BIG plus- software and system updates are handled in a FAR superior manner. Windows ALWAYS needs you to reboot to do OS updates. So irritating. And they are so slow. My 9yr old dual boots his laptop, and is already always complaining about vista doing updates, vista rebooting on him when he walked away, etc... it's funny. The repository system of getting software and managing updates is way better than going online, and having every installed program have to do its own monitoring for updates. There are a few exceptions in Linux, with some commercial software (Bibble, for one, ad VBox - if you don't have their ppa added to your software sources), but for the most part it's pretty fantastic.


BM

[aytech]

1 BIG difference: price
Linux is believed to be more difficuilt, what i believe is that if we were to grow up with Lunix, we'd then say that windows is difficuilt. Ok, in win you use command line much less, probly M$ programmers spent more time with GUIs rather then the OS itself =D>

Both OS serve the same purpose, one just has to decide: do a little thinking and save some cash or pay half of your month salary for the ******* and let M$ do the thinking for you (sadly, payments just start there)

[Bachstelze]

I'm sorry, and I mean no offence, but the answers so far, imho, are pretty crappy...


http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/funny-pictures-cat-hates-your-opinion.jpg

[bunburya]

The difference is that Linux is Linux and Windows is Windows. It's like asking what's the difference between red and blue.
I disagree. They are both operating systems, so for the end user they are both trying to fulfill the same role (or similar roles). It's silly to say the two can't be compared or contrasted, they're in competition with one another, they must be (and very often are) compared and contrasted.

[Bachstelze]

I disagree. They are both operating systems,

Red and blue are both colors, and can be compared (for example, they have different wavelengths). Windows and Linux are both operating systems, and can also be compared, in a lot of ways. That's not what OP asked for. He asked for a fundamental difference between them. There is no single fundamental thing that you can pinpoint and say: "that's what makes Linux different from Windows."

[akoskm]

I'm sorry, and I mean no offence, but the answers so far, imho, are pretty crappy...

I read some information before, but I can't recall exactly where I saw it...but here's what I remember:

#1- *nix (unix like operating systems) were designed from the ground up, way back 40 years ago, when MS wasn't even a twinkle in Bill Gate's eye (maybe, maybe not), as a multi-user, multi-tasking operating system. Windows was not. From what I read, MS version of multi user is a duct tape add-on compared to the way *unix os's do it... dunno if that's true.

#2- I also read somwhere (can't find it right now) that the way Linux handles software and drivers is better than windows. something to do with layers or some crap like that, that prevents a software problem from bringing down the whole system. I know Windows was really bad about that, years ago. When something crashed, I almost always had to reboot to make it work good again, but in recent years I haven't had that problem as much.

#3- BIG plus- software and system updates are handled in a FAR superior manner. Windows ALWAYS needs you to reboot to do OS updates. So irritating. And they are so slow. My 9yr old dual boots his laptop, and is already always complaining about vista doing updates, vista rebooting on him when he walked away, etc... it's funny. The repository system of getting software and managing updates is way better than going online, and having every installed program have to do its own monitoring for updates. There are a few exceptions in Linux, with some commercial software (Bibble, for one, ad VBox - if you don't have their ppa added to your software sources), but for the most part it's pretty fantastic.


BM

You can find your #1, #2, #3 - better explained - in the article what I posted above. Take a look to it! :popcorn:

[whiskeylover]

File system is the #1 difference. (the way files are stored and handled .. no fragmentation of files!)
False. EXT3 is more resistant to fragmentation. But its not 100% immune



Means of installing applications/programs.
(and the fact that installs are stand alone .. no REGISTRY files, thus no REGISTRY errors and no need to reboot every time a program is installed.)
Changes to the REGISTRY is not the reason you have to reboot after installation. Also, you don't have to restart your computer EVERYTIME you install something. Also, Linux has to be restarted after important system updates.



Only have items installed that are needed for operation .. everything else can be changed.
Same with Windows.


User enabled customization.
Are you saying that there is no "User enabled customization" in Windows?



Down time for cleaning and maintenance.
Okay, Linux has way less downtime. But it doesn't have 0 downtime. Moreover, downtime depends on the usage.



(OH, and then there is the COMMUNITY! Something Windows will NEVER have!)
Are you serious? Do you know how huge the MS developers community is?

Please stop spreading lies.

[Chris1274]

The difference is that Linux is Linux and Windows is Windows. It's like asking what's the difference between red and blue.

That's a poor analogy. Color concepts are simple, unanalyzable and derivable from direct experience alone. You can know what red and blue are only by having red and blue visual experiences. That's far from the case when it comes to computer operating systems. I see no reason why a Windows user couldn't be made to understand at least the basic notion of what Linux is without ever sitting in front of a Linux machine. What I want to know is how to go about making them begin to understand that notion.

[blueturtl]

This isn't meant to start a flame war about which one is better ...

Having switched over to Ubuntu about a month ago, if someone were to ask me, "So what's the difference between Linux and Windows?" I could easily enough point to this or that feature, but I'd like to be able to say what the essential difference is between them as operating systems. Not so much what you can do with them but with what they are. I'm interested in the Socratic question, "What makes Linux to be Linux, and how is that different from what makes Windows to be Windows?" Is it the kernel architecture? Is it just that one is open-source while the other is closed-source?

So if you were asked to summarize, in a few sentences, the essence of a Linux OS and contrast it with the Windows OS, how would you do it?

Linux is an operating system that will do anything you desire, if you are capable of learning and/or contributing.

Windows will do some things for you without any effort, and other things never if you paid a million dollars and slaved for the rest of your life.

[Chris1274]

File system is the #1 difference. (the way files are stored and handled .. no fragmentation of files!)

Means of installing applications/programs.
(and the fact that installs are stand alone .. no REGISTRY files, thus no REGISTRY errors and no need to reboot every time a program is installed.)

Only have items installed that are needed for operation .. everything else can be changed.

Security

User enabled customization.

Down time for cleaning and maintenance.

Just a few of MANY differences.

(OH, and then there is the COMMUNITY! Something Windows will NEVER have!)

The file system, as distinct from the drive system, seems like an essential difference. Good point there. As for the others, I'm not sure that they get at the essence of the matter. For example, there's no reason why Windows couldn't have an active support community as well. Also, there doesn't seem to be any reason why Windows couldn't allow for more user customization. Those seem to be accidental differences rather than essential ones.

[denver]

The link posted by akoskm is very good. Everybody that posted so far should have a look at it :). I found it particularly informative.

This topic could go on forever, and has been talked about countless times. In the end everybody will find he's/her own answer to what makes linux, linux :)

[ajgreeny]

I am not sure the differences are easily describable; they are rather subjective and will depend entirely how you use your linux computer compared with how you use your windows computer.

If you use both, you will quickly find the differences that are important to you; for somebody else the important differences may not be the same ones.

Use them; love them; hate them; whatever! That's the joy of the choice you have. I just know that I could never go back to windows again. Give me freedom any day.

[eriktheblu]

Fundamental difference? That's just it, they are fundamentally different.

Is the fundamental difference between a gasoline and diesel vehicle the fuel? the engine? the maintenance program? the environmental impact?

What's the fundamental difference between a modular home and a hotel room?

VHS and Betamax, Blu-Ray and HDDVD, 9mm and .45ACP, cake or pie. We can go on forever.

There are plenty of differences, and plenty of similarities. It's all just a different approach to accomplish similar goals.

The fundamental attributes of an operating system are interface and data processing. Every OS does this, so they are all fundamentally the same.

[koenn]

Linux and Windows are operating systems. They both do the things operating systems do : make abstraction of the hardware, manage memory and storage devices, provide file access, provide mechinism for user management, etc.

The essential differences will be in the way the provide this functionality, i.e. in their design principals and paradigms, and in the implementation thereof.

To know the "essence" of linux, a book on 'the unix way' would go a long way. Selected chapters from The Art of Unix Programming (http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/) and the wikipedia entry on Unix philosophy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy are a good start

Where you'd get similar info on Windows, I don't know. info@microsoft.com ?

comparing/contrasting them in a few sentences would be pretty difficult.

[Shompol]

Here is a really good article (imho) about Linux and about those differences:http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm.

"This work is copyright 24/05/06.... " What other obsolete irrelevant article can we find out there? How about this one:Internet is a Fad! http://www.newsweek.com/1995/02/26/the-internet-bah.html

[akoskm]

"This work is copyright 24/05/06.... " What other obsolete irrelevant article can we find out there? How about this one:Internet is a Fad! http://www.newsweek.com/1995/02/26/the-internet-bah.html

Obsolete? Please do not grab the technical side of this article while reading. This article is pretty old, I know. The point is that on this site the fundamental differences between these operating system are pretty much explained - even through examples, see that one with cars. :KS

[denver]

"This work is copyright 24/05/06.... " What other obsolete irrelevant article can we find out there? How about this one:Internet is a Fad! http://www.newsweek.com/1995/02/26/the-internet-bah.html

Fundamentally nothing changed since 2006. "Old"....maybe, "obsolete irrelevant" definitely not. Comparing the internet 15 years ago to an operating system and/or kernel from 4 years ago? ....seriously? Nothing absurd about that comparison ring a bell?

[rjbl]

Fundamentally:-

GNU/Linux is a multi-user, multi-tasking, secure operating system based upon the UNIX OS design.

The Microsoft Windows operating systems are quasi-multi-tasking, quasi-multi-user, insecure operating systems derived from the original MS DOS. Windows is claimed to be POSIX compliant.

Essentially, Windows is intended for single-users using single pc's. GNU/Linux is conceived for many users sharing the same hardware.

GNU/Linux is packaged, with an X-Workstation graphical front end, by many independent distributors as personal computing systems, each aiming at different user profiles.

Windows is sold by Microsoft as a proprietary graphical workstation with basic functionality, the user being free to purchase Microsoft or third-party applications software to create a desired functional system configuration.

rjbl