linux and windows

Hey,

This is a stupid question, but what makes Linux and Windows so different?(BESIDES the fact that Linux kicks WAY more ass!!!) I'm asking about the physical aspects. What is so diferent about them?

I read a book on this a while ago... a long while ago... but ill see what i remember-
Windows uses a micro-kernel which passes a zillion messages per second asking questions like "did he press the a key" or "did he move the mouse" and it handles the messages from there.
Linux uses some other type of kernel that i forgot everything about.

Linux also doesnt use dll files it uses librarys(if that makes any sense) and linux was created by a gazillion people who just sat at home and programmed it, thus relieving more of the bugs from it.

then you get into why open-source software works and all that good stuff

-hope that helps

Thanks krypto, have you heard anything like it being "a multi-user OS?"

ya, but that means that each user name created on linux doesn't interfere with any others... for example if i get a virus on my user name on your computer, it cant physically travel to you... but the book i read didnt say too much... but if you want to check it out it's called "Just for Fun" by Linus Torvalds
<edit>
it is more of an autobiography of Linus Torvalds but i found it interesting considering he created linux
</edit>

Thnaks a lot krypto, people keep asking me what the difference between Linux and Windows is and I have no idea what to tell them.

If any of the info here is unaccurate... im sorry... but it has been a while since i read the book

Which Windows? NT or SUE? (SUE = Single User Edition 95, 98, Me)

There are already a few errors in this thread, but I'll wait until you answer this question to correct them. ;)

In the mean time, a few other threads to look at on various aspects of microkernels, linux compared to windows, linux kernel errors and kernel verification.

Microkernels attachment:
http://www.antionline.com/showthread...937#post675260

Linux kernel errors:
http://www.antionline.com/showthread...323#post674323

Kernel verification: (the virtues of microkernels)
http://www.antionline.com/showthread...983#post673983

A long meandering thread that compares various aspects of the two systems:
http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=249631

catch

if i might add a bit, Linux is a multi user OS because it truly is. Users can have diffrent login methids, aswell as for every use on the system the Linux OS will use seprite memory usages and cashing such for each user. some other diffrences is that linux is customizable, everything you want to use you have to setup and tailer it to your liking. Some times the default is good wile in other aspects you must go threw the conf file and set witch flags you want and witch you dont. The big diffrence between them is the fact is the directory structures of the two. Windows is pretty much a/b/c/d/e/f... drives, most files are situated on the C:\ drive, when in linux programs are everywhare, like /usr/local/bin, /sbin, /etc/, /home, theres places for files and programs everywhare. So much more then windows C:\Program Files is whare your installed programs are. This may seem a little one sided but I am running redhat 9 right now =) ....theres sooooooo much i left out, and im only a newbie with linux so forgive me if im wrong with any infomation.

syphon for me i like linux cause you know of it's different capabilities or feature not like windows first it's a multi tasking and multi user this OS system were multiple user can log on at the same time and it's absolutely FREE hehehehe... and in linux and unix you can acctually see what your system is doing not like windows were you really dont know what your system is doing, if you see those Message Report that sometimes pop up when your windows system had a trouble or and ask you to report it to the window assistance to inform them about that bug..you dont know if that pop up contains information about your system that why windows had a anti-trust case filed againt them .... in linux you can dedug your Os if you want ... linux has a fewer virus thaan windows.. and lots off reasson !!!!! i cant count the waays okay

Let's see. I'm sure catch can point out any erros of mine, he is much more into kernal archetecture (sorry hard word for me to spell.)

Linux is a multi-tasking multi-user operating system. But so are current versions of windows. (i.e. XP ) The two main diffrences are in the file system structres, and in the kernal archetecture. Linux uses a monolithec (don't know if i spelled right) kernal, where windows uses a microkernal.

As of now a microkernal is in theory the more advanced type of kernal. It is a basic kernal that uses process( not sure if that is right) outside of the kernal to control aspects of the computer. The thinking behind this is that if any one of the processes is hindred useless the entire system (kernal) does not falter. On the otherhand a monolithec kernal (such as linux) is one big compiled hunk of code wich handels everything enternily. Supporters of the monolithec kernal state that "if the code isn't right, it dosn't belong in the kernal"

Technically Windows scores higher on security ratings, (catch correct me if I'm wrong) i.e ISO 15408 standards. Linux on the other hand gives you access to the source code of the kernal, letting you customize and tweak it for your needs.

Another major factor is Linux is open source, where windows is closed source. Basically this means that anyone can make their own adjustments to the linux source code. Windows on the other hand has its source code stored in a vault in redmond with only microsoft programmers able to access it.

As far as which is better, there is no answer and really comes down to the person maintaing the system.

Hope I helped, and have accurate info. Somone correct me if I have gone astray.

DeafLamb

(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: