difference between linux and windows except the differences like...use friendly(window),open source(linux),command based(linux)...
please tell difference with respect to kernel,scheduling,file system..etc

we can't tell you EVERY difference, that would take forever. please try to refer to existing guides online to outline the basics:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=di...ux+and+windows

This sounds like a homework question.....

Regardless, please give some kind of context for the question. For example, what is your primary role?----eg. user, developer, system maintainer, etc.

1 members found this post helpful.

Windows: You pay for it, but you don't own it, you only have a license to use it. It's closed source, so what's happening beneath the surface is a mystery.
Linux: It's free, but you can pay for it, and you own it. It's open source, so what's happening beneath can be examined.
And read this article:
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

Let's simply say this: there is more than one operating-system in very common use on this planet. Each of these grew-up out of different preceding works, or at least were heavily influenced by them. Some of these differences go all the way to the "guts" of the system.

For example, the Windows-NT and OS/2 projects were heavily influenced by DEC ... by the VMS operating system which runs on a VAX.

Linux, on the other hand, is an offshoot of Unix, which is an entirely different system that started at Bell Labs after the government-funded MULTICS (pun intended) system was going southward.

IBM's MVS system, now called Z/OS because that presumably sounds sexier, grew out of a slew of IBM/360 operating systems, which in turn were influenced by IBM's earlier equipment.

And so on.

I happen to be a fond student of operating systems and language compilers, and all that I can say is that the differences run as deep as the differences between the engineering teams ... the generations of engineering teams, now ... who originally envisioned them for the hardware of their time. There literally are many books which strive to answer your question. (And I have several dozen of them on the shelves behind my desk. I read them, uhh, for fun.)

Lets see, they are both programs that run nicely on 80386 decendents, though Linux runs on many others as well, windows only
Friendly: about the same.
Intuitive: about the same.
Command-line based: about the same, but Windows makes it more difficult to see that, and Linux allows for more powerful and useful commands.
Kernel: Windows hides theirs, the Linux one is public and may be updated from sources if you like (or not, if you fear).
Schedulers: at multiple levels - both. Windows are set by Microsoft. Linux ones are selectable, replacable, and tunable by the user. Both have pretty good defaults, if you do not care to tune them.
Filesystems. The best for both are very good. Windows supports Microsoft file systems. Linux supports EVERYONES file systems.

Both are powerful at the desktop level. Linux is also powerful at the server level. (Research: how many Supercomputer clusters have been based upon Windows in the last 10 years. How many on Linux. Quiz later!)

Both scale both up and down. Linux can freely be scaled in either direction. Scaling Windows down for savings of space, memory, or performance is illegal in most countries (everywhere that Microsoft can arrange that.)

Cost: both have a learning curve cost. The seem about equal. Linux has options: free use with only community support, or licensed with commercial support. Windows has support from Microsoft if you can afford it (Pay by the minute, $$$) that forces most private individuals and some small companies to use third party or community support. About equally effective, but the MS supports costs a lot more (on top of the product costing a lot more).

Restrictions: Read the license agreements for the legal language: I am not a lawyer.
Networking: MS network stack allows about half the full speed bandwidth on the same iron compared to recent Linux kernels. It is license restricted in software so that if it is not activated it fails in one way or another. That are no software failures intentionally inserted into Linux in general. The same may be said of BSD, the other common Unix replacement.
Replacing the desktop with one you like better is a real adventure with Windows, easy with Linux.
Both can be run at server level or for virtualization WITHOUT a desktop, but to run Windows that way you have to purchase the special version.

This could go on and on, but the wife is waiting supper and I am hungry. You are on your own the rest of the way.

Windows and GNU/Linux, as well as *BSD, Solaris, OpenIndiana, FreeDOS, and every other OS out there all have about the same things in common as long as they have the software to do those tasks.

Each system has it's own strengths and weaknesses that differ from operating system to operating system. Some are closed source, some proprietary, some commercial, and some freely given away.

However all are charged with the task of getting work done. However, the end choice of which OS to use all depends on your needs, and those vary person to person and task to task.

The best option is try them all, see what works best for you, and then go from there.

You could, of course, dig deeper than that.

Microsoft Windows, like Z/OS and many others (e.g. real-time OSes), can best be thought of as part of a vertically-integrated software system. Microsoft exclusively owns and therefore controls every part of it. They alone control the full source-code to it. They can therefore engineer supporting-technology for anything that they might be doing, corporately, into any part of it ... including the kernel if necessary. They've built their system on layers of technology such as OLE and dot-Net, which they have very tightly integrated into their system. Windows has a soup-to-nuts tightly integrated authentication and authorization system ... never mind that the marketing idiots turned it off for millions of Home Edition users. There are a great many aspects of their system that, and I don't mind saying it and with genuine admiration, Microsoft absolutely did right.

And-d-d ... Microsoft's strategy, "this strategy in general," works.

Linux, and to a lesser extent Unix, takes a very different approach. They're the "cross-platform kings." (What Microsoft calls "Windows Mobile" is, in fact, not the same system as "Windows.") Linux is platform-agnostic; Windows is pretty much X86 only. Linux by design allows a great deal of customization, whereas Windows, again by design, does not. (And when I say, "by design," I am speaking of engineering reasons not world-domination ones. Those are handled separately by the marketing department ... ... )

I suggest that the reasons why the two approaches are so very different, and why one will never supersede the other, is that both of them are "engineering valid." And yet, the domains that each one occupies ... well, "they decidedly do, and yet they decidedly don't" share common ground. The all-important difference between the two is not so much what they share, but what they don't. Microsoft, and the various other proprietary closed-system vendors, found a market and hit it square. Linux, meanwhile, did the same. But the targets that each one hit are not the same.

Well at least I certainly feel no guilt (as with respect to software cost, and security), besides little regret over some features in which Windows is still superior. Any general editor still better than Notepad++? Also, control has never been better than that of XP (that is if you're a fan of speedy keyboard hactics).

The filesystem question is easy. Just look up NTFS and the various Linux filesystems (like ext4 and btrfs) on Wikipedia.

A lot of the differences are down to history. Take the different approach to security. Windows started as a OS for desktop PCs in the days when they weren't normally connected to anything and the internet didn't exist. Linux was a free replacement for Unix, which started on mainframes in the 1960s. Unix systems had lots of users who had to be prevented from getting in each others way or wrecking the whole system. That's why security features like logging in, permissions, and passwords are built in to Linux, but were a late addition to Windows.

A key difference for me is that you DO NOT OWN your "copy" of Windows. It belongs to Microsoft. You have purchased a license that allows you to use it.

Linux however you already own, effectively. You can download it, use it, change it, copy it, download the source code , change it recompile it release your own distro.

Plus any problem you have you can interface pretty much directly with the devs via mailing list or forum. Ever tried to pursuade MS support to allow you to talk to the guy who writes the code? Good luck with that one.

In my opinion, gedit and Leafpad. Or, for straightforward prose, PyRoom.

Have you tried Notepad++ already with all its features? Apparently those editors are just simplified. They don't even support multiple tabs, and text searching couldn't be more powerful. Not even mentioning the tools it has. With Notepad++ they even can't be compared by half.

If it's just about simple editing anyway I still have Vim or KWrite. They're quite enough.

Never used Notepad++. What does it provide that emacs doesn't?