Ten key differences between Linux and Windows

Tag : LINUX

By Jack Wallen. TechRepublic, News.com
Posted on ZDNet News : Sep 04, 2008 6:01:46 AM Before debating the relative merits and shortcomings of Linux andWindows, it helps to understand the real distinctions between them.Here are the key differences distilled into one list.
I have been around the Linux community for more than 10 years now.From the very beginning, I have known that there are basicdifferences between Linux and Windows that will always set themapart. This is not to say one is better than the other; it's justto say that they are fundamentally different.
Many people, looking from the view of one operating system or theother, don't quite get the differences between these twopowerhouses. So I decided it might be useful to list 10 of theprimary differences between Linux and Windows.
1. Full access vs no access
Having access to the source code is probably the single mostsignificant difference between Linux and Windows. The fact thatLinux belongs to the GNU Public License ensures that users (of allsorts) can access (and alter) the code to the very kernel thatserves as the foundation of the Linux operating system. You want topeer at the Windows code? Good luck. Unless you are a member of avery select (and elite, to many) group, you will never lay eyes oncode making up the Windows operating system.
You can look at this from both sides of the fence. Some say givingthe public access to the code opens the operating system (and thesoftware that runs on top of it) to malicious developers who willtake advantage of any weakness they find. Others say having fullaccess to the code helps bring about faster improvements and bugfixes to keep those malicious developers from being able to bringthe system down.
I have, on occasion, dipped into the code of one Linux applicationor another, and when all was said and done, was happy with theresults. Could I have done that with a closed-source Windowsapplication? No.
2. Licensing freedom vs licensing restrictions
Along with access comes the difference between the licenses. I'msure every IT professional could go on and on about licensing of PCsoftware. But let's just look at the key aspect of the licenses(without getting into legalese).
With a Linux GPL-licensed operating system, you are free to modifythat software and use and even republish or sell it (so long as youmake the code available). Also, with the GPL, you can download asingle copy of a Linux distribution (or application) and install iton as many machines as you like. With the Microsoft license, youcan do none of the above. You are bound to the number of licensesyou purchase, so if you purchase 10 licenses, you can legallyinstall that operating system (or application) on only 10 machines.
3. Online peer support vs paid helpdesk support
This is one issue where most companies turn their backs on Linux.But it's really not necessary. With Linux, you have the support ofa huge community via forums, online search, and plenty of dedicatedwebsites. And of course, if you feel the need, you can purchasesupport contracts from some of the bigger Linux companies (Red Hatand Novell, for instance).
However, when you use the peer support inherent in Linux, you dotake a chance with time. You could have an issue with something,send out email to a mailing list or post on a forum, and within 10minutes be flooded with suggestions. Or these suggestions couldtake hours or days to come in. It seems all up to chance sometimes.
Yet generally speaking, most problems with Linux have beenencountered and documented, so the chances are good you'll findyour solution fairly quickly.
On the other side of the coin is support for Windows. You can gothe same route with Microsoft and depend upon your peers forsolutions: there are just as many help sites/lists/forums forWindows as there are for Linux. And you can purchase support fromMicrosoft itself.
Most corporate higher-ups easily fall victim to the safety net thathaving a support contract brings. But most higher-ups haven't hadto depend up on said support contract. Of the various people I knowwho have used...either a Linux paid support contract or a Microsoftpaid support contract, I can't say one was more pleased than theother. This raises the question: 'Why do so many say Microsoftsupport is superior to Linux paid support?'
4. Full vs partial hardware support
One issue that is slowly becoming nonexistent is hardware support.Years ago, if you wanted to install Linux on a machine you had tomake sure you hand-picked each piece of hardware or yourinstallation would not work 100 percent. I can remember, back in1997-ish, trying to figure out why I couldn't get Caldera Linux orRed Hat Linux to see my modem.
After much looking around, I found I was the proud owner of aWinmodem. So I had to go out and purchase a US Robotics externalmodem because that was the one modem I knew would work.
This is not so much the case now. You can grab a PC (or laptop) andmost likely get one or more Linux distributions to install and worknearly 100 percent. But there are still some exceptions; forinstance, hibernate/suspend remains a problem with many laptops,although it has come a long way.
With Windows, you know that pretty much every piece of hardwarewill work with the operating system. Of course, there are times(and I have experienced this over and over) when you will wind upspending much of the day searching for the correct drivers for thatpiece of hardware you no longer have the install disk for.
But you can go out and buy a cheap Ethernet card and know it willwork on your machine (as long as you have, or can find, thedrivers).
You also can rest assured that when you purchase that insanelypowerful graphics card, you will probably be able to take fulladvantage of its power.
5. Command line vs no command line
No matter how far the Linux operating system has come and howamazing the desktop environment becomes, the command line willalways be an invaluable tool for administration purposes. Nothingwill ever replace my favorite text-based editor, ssh, and any givencommand-line tool. I can't imagine administering a Linux machinewithout the command line.
But for the end user, this is not necessarily the case. You coulduse a Linux machine for years and never touch the command line.Same with Windows. You can still use the command line with Windows,but not nearly to the extent as with Linux. And Microsoft tends toobfuscate the command prompt from users. Without going to Run andentering cmd (or command, or whichever it is these days), the userwon't even know the command-line tool exists. And if a user doesget the Windows command line up and running, how useful is itreally?
6. Centralized vs non-centralized application installation
With Linux you have (with nearly every distribution) a centralizedlocation where you can search for, add or remove software. I'mtalking about package management systems, such as Synaptic. WithSynaptic, you can open up one tool, search for an application (orgroup of applications), and install that application without havingto do any web searching (or purchasing). Windows has nothing likethis. With Windows, you must know where to find the software youwant to install, download the software (or put the CD into yourmachine), and run setup.exe or install.exe with a simpledouble-click. For many years, it was thought that installingapplications on Windows was far easier than on Linux. And for manyyears, that thought was right on target. Not so much now.Installation under Linux is simple, painless and centralized.
7. Flexibility vs rigidity
I always compare Linux (especially the desktop) and Windows to aroom where the floor and ceiling are either movable or not. WithLinux, you have a room where the floor and ceiling can be raised orlowered, at will, as high or low as you want to make them. WithWindows, that floor and ceiling are immovable. You can't go furtherthan Microsoft has deemed it necessary to go. Take, for instance,the desktop. Unless you are willing to pay for and install athird-party application that can alter the desktop appearance, withWindows you are stuck with what Microsoft has declared...is theideal desktop for you. With Linux, you can pretty much make yourdesktop look and feel exactly how you want/need. You can have asmuch or as little on your desktop as you want. From simple flatFluxbox to a full-blown 3D Compiz experience, the Linux desktop isas flexible an environment as there is on a computer.
8. Fanboys vs corporate types
I wanted to add this because even though Linux has reached wellbeyond its school-project roots, Linux users can besoapbox-dwelling fanatics who are quick to spout off about why youshould be choosing Linux over Windows. I am guilty of this on adaily basis (I try hard to recruit new fanboys/girls), and it's abadge I wear proudly.
Of course, this is seen as less than professional by some. Afterall, why would something worthy of a corporate environment have orneed cheerleaders? Shouldn't the software sell itself?
Because of the open-source nature of Linux, it has to make dowithout the help of the marketing budgets and deep pockets ofMicrosoft. With that comes the need for fans to help spread theword. And word of mouth is the best friend of Linux.
Some see the fanaticism as the same college-level hoorah that keepsLinux in the basements for LUG meetings and science projects, but Ibeg to differ. Another company, thanks to the phenomenon of asimple music player and phone, has fallen into the same fanboyfanaticism, and yet that company's image has not been besmirchedbecause of that fanaticism.
Windows does not have these same fans. Instead, Windows has aleague of paper-certified administrators who believe the hype whenthey hear the misrepresented market-share numbers reassuring themthey will be employable until the end of time.
9. Automated vs nonautomated removable media
I remember the days of old when you had to mount your floppy to useit and unmount it to remove it. Well, those times are drawing to aclose  though not completely.
One issue that plagues new Linux users is how removable media isused. The idea of having to manually 'mount' a CD drive to accessthe contents of a CD is completely foreign to new users.
There is a reason this is the way it is. Because Linux has alwaysbeen a multi-user platform, it was thought that forcing a user tomount a media to use it would keep the user's files from beingoverwritten by another user. Think about it: on a multi-usersystem, if everyone had instant access to a disk that had beeninserted, what would stop them from deleting or overwriting a fileyou had just added to the media?
Things have now evolved to the point where Linux subsystems are setup so that you can use a removable device in the same way you usethem in Windows, but it's not the norm. And besides, who doesn'twant to manually edit the /etc/fstab file?
10. Multilayered run levels vs single-layered run level
I couldn't figure out how best to title this point, so I went witha description. What I'm talking about is Linux's inherent abilityto stop at different run levels.
With this, you can work from either the command line (run level 3)or the GUI (run level 5). This can really save your bacon when XWindows is playing up and you need to figure out the problem. Youcan do this by booting into run level 3, logging in as root, andfinding/fixing the problem.
With Windows, you're lucky to get to a command line via safemode--and then you may or may not have the tools you need to fixthe problem. In Linux, even in run level 3, you can still get andinstall a tool to help you out (hello apt-get install APPLICATIONvia the command line).
Having different run levels is helpful in another way. Say themachine in question is a web or mail server. You want to give itall the memory you have, so you don't want the machine to boot intorun level 5. However, there are times when you do want the GUI foradministrative purposes (even though you can fully administer aLinux server from the command line). Because you can run the startxcommand from the command line at run level 3, you can still startup X Windows and have your GUI as well. With Windows, you are stuckat the Graphical run level unless you hit a serious problem.