-
(I'm going to assume NT since SUE is garbage and a dying line)
I see a lot of you stating that Linux is a multi-user system, as if this is a difference between the two. This couldn't be further from the truth, windows is a multi-user, pre-emptive multi-processing, and 2k+ also feature real time modes. (Although a QNX advocate would smack me silly for saying that, and rightly so... still it is a difference between the systems.)
Windows does use a microkernel architecture as several others have stated and the enormous benefits (security/stability) of the microkernel are outlined in a few other the links I posted, included why microkernels got a bad rep trying to run UN*X. That said I will skip this point.
Security-wise Windows is the superior system, if you don't want to take my word for it talk to the DOD/NSA/CIA/DIA/NCSC/ISO whoever you like really. NT lacks a super user account and instead uses administrator users and operator users which exist within the confines of the system's security policy, unlike root which exists outside of the systems security policy. (Root can access files it does not have explicit access on, windows admin account cannot.) Windows uses a more finely grained access control model (regarding both who and how) and uses a single command/single action security mechanism as well as the ability to explicitly deny access. Both of these attributes allow Windows to have a predictable rights propagation pattern, while Linux does not. Windows also separates subjects by user, group, role, organizational unit, computer, domain, etc. (this was covered in the finely grained access controls) Much of this can also be found in the links above.
Windows is highly configurable, in fact it is likely that it is simpler to configure than Linux. the reason why is that the microkernel essentially just manages various modules through messages. It is a trivial matter to add and remove these modules and or replace them with your own (this can be done with Linux as well, but that is rarely the point the are arguing), in fact Microsoft makes a kernel driver studio available for its visual dev suite. With these you can alter the way your file system looks C:\ to / or *thIs iS tHe MaIn DiReCtOrY* as my friend set up on his, perhaps only IIS web host to offer an INTERCAL ISAPI module. As many of you already know, changing your GUI (desktop and window manager) is a trivial matter as well.
While it is true that the Linux source is open, and keep in mind Linux is just the kernel (found at kernel.org) all the rest of the stuff is GNU, hence "GNU/Linux" and is in no way related to Linus Torvalds beyond the fact that it happens to run on his system. Again, while it is true Linux is open source, as you can see from the Linux kernel errors document, this does not mean it is error free. Linux errors live an average of almost 2 years and some over 7 years at the time of that documents. These are source bugs by the way, not design flaws. It is likely that the Windows kernel, with its much smaller size is far simpler task to verify and manage, as such I would bet it has fewer errors and those that do exist don't live as long. This part is all intelligent guessing on my part though and should be treated as no more than such.
As far as which is better? Well both clearly have their uses. My personal opinion is that Linux is still a toy and not fit for production environments, but this opinion is based more on it's documentation than on the system's actual strengths.
Do you have any other specific questions?
catch
-
You forgot that Linux has a pegiun for its mascot and Windows has....well a damn window!
Plus there are like hundreds of Linux/Unix OSes out there where there are only about 10 versions of Windows.
-
The differences are beneath the surface. Even lots of people who
"know a little about computers" may not be very good at explaining it.
Modern Windows is a multi-tasking and multi-user OS, every bit as much as Linux, but
just not the same. The main difference is that Windows costs way too much.
:cool:
