Headline FeedsLinuxInsider Talkback
|
|
See Full Story
What really are the most fundamental differences between Windows variants like 2003/XP and Unix variants like Linux? From a practical perspective, cost is an obvious differentiator, as are access to source and the ability to run outside the Intel processor environment. But it's possible to argue that those differences are neither real nor important. For example, cost is usually important in business only if the products being compared are otherwise very similar.
Re: What Differentiates Linux from Windows?
Posted by: RaH 2004-04-02 14:16:51 In reply to: Paul Murphy
Hmmm, what differentiates Linux from Windows. I could rant forever about this, but I'll keep it short 'n' sweet. When I run Windows it locks up many times per session. I run it at more than 95% system resources free. I run 3 applications, 2 of those are Explorer and Systray, the third being whatever I'm using Windows for and it locks up. I use Linux to develop my programs, and to surf the internet. I run fifty some applications on 4 different desktops as three different users on a computer that only has a 333 megahert processor and I get perhaps 2 lockups a year. I think the better O/S is the one that has more eyes. Open Source support it!
Re: What Differentiates Linux from Windows?
Posted by: KilgoreTrout 2004-03-15 17:31:32 In reply to: Paul Murphy
/*
Written by - Paul, best Linux guy in the WORLD!
Feel free to distribute freely and review this code. It's the way all the smartest people work.
p.s. I am not responsible for anything in this code and can't idemnify anything or anyone.
*/
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
/*
Tell everyone how smart I am at the one thing I know.
*/
printf("This program, from a 20-year veteran of one technical discipline, just cost you $50,000\n");
printf("But I'm really good at being a one-trick pony, so the services fees are worth it\n");
/* Linux is it. Maybe I should mention GNU? */
printf("Ooops, but the OS was free!!!\n");
exit(0);
}
Written by - Paul, best Linux guy in the WORLD!
Feel free to distribute freely and review this code. It's the way all the smartest people work.
p.s. I am not responsible for anything in this code and can't idemnify anything or anyone.
*/
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
/*
Tell everyone how smart I am at the one thing I know.
*/
printf("This program, from a 20-year veteran of one technical discipline, just cost you $50,000\n");
printf("But I'm really good at being a one-trick pony, so the services fees are worth it\n");
/* Linux is it. Maybe I should mention GNU? */
printf("Ooops, but the OS was free!!!\n");
exit(0);
}
Re: What Differentiates Linux from Windows?
Posted by: Paul_Murphy 2004-03-11 15:52:44 In reply to: Paul Murphy
I just received this email:
--
From: "Mark Russinovich" <mark@sysinternals.com>
To: <rudy@mailhost.edpstaff.com>
Subject: Linux and Windows
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:30:24 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Thread-Index: AcQHwNOxdSTMYl4xToudyRPyZYimCg==
Hi Rudy (aka Paul Murphy),
I read your article (http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/33089.html)
posted today at Linux Insider comparing Windows and Linux from a design
philosophy point of view and am writing to tell you that its full of blatant
innacuracies, misconceptions and ridiculous postulations on the reasons
behind the way Windows is architected. Your descriptions of Windows memory
management, process management, and kernel behavior demonstrate almost
complete ignorance of the Windows OS.
Its exactly this type of irresponsible writing that the Linux community
always accuses the Windows community of using to promote FUD. If you're
interested in maintaining journalistic integrity for Linux Insider (or your
psuedonym of Paul Murphy), reply to this e-mail and I'll provide you
point-by-point corrections for you to publish. You can also research the OS
yourself by reading the official book on the internals of Windows NT/2000
that I coathored, Inside Windows 2000.
-Mark Russinovich
---
--
From: "Mark Russinovich" <mark@sysinternals.com>
To: <rudy@mailhost.edpstaff.com>
Subject: Linux and Windows
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:30:24 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Thread-Index: AcQHwNOxdSTMYl4xToudyRPyZYimCg==
Hi Rudy (aka Paul Murphy),
I read your article (http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/33089.html)
posted today at Linux Insider comparing Windows and Linux from a design
philosophy point of view and am writing to tell you that its full of blatant
innacuracies, misconceptions and ridiculous postulations on the reasons
behind the way Windows is architected. Your descriptions of Windows memory
management, process management, and kernel behavior demonstrate almost
complete ignorance of the Windows OS.
Its exactly this type of irresponsible writing that the Linux community
always accuses the Windows community of using to promote FUD. If you're
interested in maintaining journalistic integrity for Linux Insider (or your
psuedonym of Paul Murphy), reply to this e-mail and I'll provide you
point-by-point corrections for you to publish. You can also research the OS
yourself by reading the official book on the internals of Windows NT/2000
that I coathored, Inside Windows 2000.
-Mark Russinovich
---
Re: What Differentiates Linux from Windows?
Posted by: wevervain 2004-03-13 09:40:29 In reply to: Paul_Murphy
"Its exactly this type of irresponsible writing that the Linux community always accuses the Windows community of using to promote FUD."
I do not understand this comment. LinuxInsider is part of the Windows community. Did you not know?
I do not understand this comment. LinuxInsider is part of the Windows community. Did you not know?
Re: What Differentiates Linux from Windows?
Posted by: mike999 2004-03-13 06:01:35 In reply to: Paul_Murphy
I agree with Mark; there are a number of factual inaccuracies in the article. For example, it was claimed that NT 5.2 only supports a 50:50 virtual memory split, but I'm currently successfully using it with a 75:25 split (/3GB mode). Current Linux kernels go one better with a 100:0 mode.
It's only relatively recently that Linux has been able to run large x86 applications. The lengthy VM stabilization process in the 2.4 kernel series meant that it took many months before Linux's VM could perform as well as NT's. I wouldn't write off either Linux or NT until you've tried them running the applications you want to run.
Michael.
It's only relatively recently that Linux has been able to run large x86 applications. The lengthy VM stabilization process in the 2.4 kernel series meant that it took many months before Linux's VM could perform as well as NT's. I wouldn't write off either Linux or NT until you've tried them running the applications you want to run.
Michael.
