| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
10 fundamental differences between Linux and Windows | |
|
||
| Time: 23:56 EST/04:56 GMT | News Source: TechRepublic | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Jack Wallen: I have been around the Linux community for more than 10 years now. From the very beginning, I have known that there are basic differences between Linux and Windows that will always set them apart. This is not, in the least, to say one is better than the other. It’s just to say that they are fundamentally different. Many people, looking from the view of one operating system or the other, don’t quite get the differences between these two powerhouses. So I decided it might serve the public well to list 10 of the primary differences between Linux and Windows. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 150 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:55:02 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 72426 (69.144.82.159) at 9/3/2008 6:34:27 AM |
|
Sad...
Not only an article trying to wedge the 'greatness' of Linux into a 'journalistic' format, but this article is full of misinformation and pure lack of technical understanding - it is scary. Things like: You can't change the UI of Windows? Really? Tell that to StarDock or 50 other companies that completely replace the Shell and even have their own Window composers. (This is one place were OSS makes people dumber, because they assume that if you don’t have the original source you can’t read or modify the binaries as well. Sure reading code from the executables is ‘harder’ but not impossible, and something real ‘technical’ people have been doing for years. Go search for uxtheme.dll or even the modifications to Windows Home versions that turn on multi-user support, remote desktop, etc. Agreed not all these methods are considered within the ‘license’, but just because the original source is not available does not make it impossible or unreadable. The reliance on having the source for an executable is a dumbing down process that is a side effect of the OSS movement.) Moving on, how about the crazy point about the command line? (Let alone not even knowing that command.com is DOS and is from Win9X and hasn't been used for over 10 years for anything but compatibility.) Just on the CLI issue, the author fails to mention several things, or is unaware of them. • Everything in Windows can be done in the GUI 'without' the need for a CLI, something even OS X can't say anymore. • Powershell is also not mentioned, and it is more than just a Linux CLI competitor, it is a revolution in CLI interfaces, as it is the first CLI in HISTORY to operate from the notion of 'objects' instead of textual piping that is found in *nix. NT has a full Object Oriented OS model and Powershell uses this native Object based OS model. Powershell deserves a look from the *nix world to see what a an Object based OS model and a CLi offer beyond dated *nix concepts. In NT you are not limited to piping textual references, as NT understands any Object not just generic text or generic I/O interfaces. Powershell taps into this model and offers features to a CLI that is IMPOSSIBLE on any *nix. (To be a *nix the OS model can't have a object based interface and must have a generic textual, I/O model.) Sadly this stuff is too far above the author's head to even have a chance of 'getting it', let alone what features or power this offers even the most diehard CLI proponents. Additionally, when the author explains that the only support Windows users get is from Microsoft, they don't seem to realize the same communities and networks the Linux users resort to for help are also used by Windows users. From sites, to mailing lists, to even the NNTP groups dedicated to helping users, are all available for Windows users, just as they are for Linux users, and used even 'more' since there are more Windows users. Microsoft even realizes the community help and support aspect and has provided specific Newsgroups for Windows since the early 90s, and Vista and XP even install these in the built in Newsgroup clients for the users and reference them for users that need help with an issue. Ironically, the Windows NNTP groups for example have existed longer than Linux has existed, and yet this author pretends like they only exist for Linux. WTH? I don't have time to go through the rest of the article trying to offer some factual context of the article's bias or inaccuracies. So read with one eye open and even resort to freaking wiki or a technical search to gather real facts that are more than an author's love of their OS. |
| #2 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at 9/3/2008 11:00:45 AM |
| Thanks, Anthony... I read that last night and thought about all the errors, but thought... it's not worth the time. It's all too typical... someone that claims to be technical, then makes comparisons with Windows based on out-of-date or completely inaccurate information. Thank you for your excellent (as always) breakdown with the facts. |
| #3 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 9/3/2008 12:32:37 PM |
|
I love how his first 2 points talk about the "openness" of Linux and how you can alter the code if needed.
STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How many average users or even corporate tech types have the wherewithal to change the code and the resources to run it through the battery of regression testing that would be necessary. This is for the sundry distros like RedHat, and Mandriva (or whatever it's called now) or the loser in his mom's basement masturbating to kernal code. |
| #4 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at 9/3/2008 2:18:49 PM |
| #3... thanks for the mental image... now I have to clean cereal off my monitor. :P |
| #5 By 92283 (142.32.208.234) at 9/3/2008 3:58:14 PM |
|
#3 People change the source code of Linux all the time. Sometimes they even upload it to a distros main servers and try to get everyone to use the changes.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-wider-implications-of-the-red.html?hpg1=bn |
| #6 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 9/4/2008 2:04:06 PM |
|
The author forgot the biggest difference -
People actually use Windows. |
| #7 By 17996 (131.107.0.105) at 9/5/2008 3:58:07 PM |
|
If this guy thinks Windows is a closed system, I don't dare ask what he thinks about the Mac!
Linux caters to the open extreme, Mac to the closed extreme, and Windows to the 95% of us who want something in between. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 150 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:55:02 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
