i would like to know the main basic difference betn microsoft and linux
 

what is the main diff bet microsoft and linux.

Availability of source code with all that that thing implies, including all the philosophical stuff.

Try reading this.

The main difference is that one is free and one is commercial, but I guess you want more detail than that :) To be frank there are many important differences so its hard to pin down a "main" difference that gives any sense of the scope of difference. if that makes any sense.

Not really. There are lots of commercial linux distros. I also preffer the term "open source". Most people assume "free as in beer" when you say "free", so the term is not concrete and can mislead people.

First, "Microsoft" is the name of an American corporation. "Linux" is the trademark for an operating system kernel. The trademark is owned by Linus Torvalds, but the Linux kernel is not owned by anyone.


Perhaps you meant to ask the difference between Windows and Linux....

In my view, the main difference is the business model: The difference between proprietary and open-source code, and the approaches to make money from each.

Microsoft is a software company, and Linux is an operating system.

The biggest difference can be summed up in a single word...choice.

Well, you create file1 with "microsoft" in it and file2 with "linux" in it. When you run diff on the two files you'll find that they have nothing in common.

This answer is certified not to help the OP in any way:rolleyes:

Comparing an OS to a corporation is pretty futile. One difference between "linux" (not a linux distribution, but "linux") is that Linux is a unix-style OS kernel and Windows is an OS with lots of other bits, included as a monolithic whole.

A Linux distribution is something different, and there are several major layers to this. One is the Linux part (the kernel), one is a whole pile of utilities and libraries and another layer is GUI's, apps (and yet more libraries).

What all this gives you is choice - if you don't like Linuxfeeble you can migrate to WonderLinux without abandoning linux. Maybe this is more choice than you can handle, but it is choice. And, if you can't handle that much choice, just choose a popular distribution and stop worrying.

Its also more transparent; if you think that a particular GUI stinks (and I can't think of one that does; I can think of ones that I'm not comfortable with, but not ones that actually stink, but maybe I'd get more hardline if I was forced to live with one that I don't like) you can just avoid it. With a big, monolithic lump like Windows, you can choose Vista. Or not. Vista gets security fixes, I'm not sure where MS is on its vacillation with support on XP, but it can make a commercial decision to cut off support to older versions at any time.

"Linux" can't do this. A big distribution could drop support for something older, but you can find smaller distros which still support olders kernels, and even if they didn't, you could do it youself. Maybe if the world was full of like-minded individuals, there would be a business there...

And Linux distros are ready to get things done. With Windows you get an OS. With Linux distros, you get enough to actually do something rather than a framework that would allow you to buy things that could let you do stuff. Sometime you might find this wacky (specialist firewall distros, specialist NAS distros, specialist security distros if they are not your thing), but someone has that problem and for them it can be a lifesaver. For the rest of us, a word processors, spreadsheets, mind mappers rss feed readers are the very stuff of life. Err, as are DNS servers, caching programs and networking utilities.

evil empire vs freedom, that is the fundamental difference.

Hi,
Not to get into a pissing contest but. :)

Someone has to buy the 'beer' as in 'free as in beer'. Be it from a distributor or bathtub the 'beer is not free'.

Never did like that analogy!

Open Source beer, now that would be 'free'. :)

someone has beaten you to it
http://www.opensourcebeerproject.com/

(beer recipes under the GNU FDL i think)

That's cool, I think everyone new to linux should be made to read that before even laying a finger on a live CD.

Seriously though asking what is the main difference between windows and a linux based OS, is like asking what the main difference is between an orange and an apple - except more complicated... and less fruity.

Oversimplified:

1) Linux is free.

2) Windows is better for 3d stuff like games.

3) Linux is great for nearly everything else.

Come on, aren't you sick of metaphors like this one yet? Remove microsoft - and you'll get Apple. And if you'll get Apple instead of Microsoft, I bet you'll want Microsoft back. All this isn't about "\"evil empires\" vs \"freedom\"".Install windows - you'll get one kind of problems. Install linux - you'll another kind of problems. You only decide which kind of problems you want. There is no need to iconize Linux or demonize microsoft - it's just wrong kind of thing for that.

2 of 3 statements are incorrect.

Which means that you can copy/modify operating systems, but doesn't mean that you won't have to pay for it.

WRONG. There are more 3d games for windows. But this doesn't mean that it windows is better for 3d stuff.

It isn't the games it is the lack of good drivers for video cards, especially ATI video cards.

"Free Beer Linux" would be a great name for a distro.

:cool:

As I heard, new drivers for new radeons work well. And I'm quite happy with quality of drivers for my nvidia videocard. Also from programmer's experience, linux is much more friendly than windows, when it comes to OpenGL programming. So I'll have to dismiss your argument as incorrect. People were already able to launch Crysis on Linux using wine. And there are 3D games for Linux, latest example (that is known for me) is Penumbra series. So I suppose it is the lack of games, and not problem with drivers.

Also, note that windows isn't immune to driver bugs. It has tons of them, on different videocards, and some prevent people from playing games. For example, The Sims 2 game has infamous "NVidia blue screen" (not BSOD) bug that makes game unplayable and appears on a wide variety of cards, and wasn't fixed yet. For 3d games the best choice will be video console - because there won't be any driver/hardware problems. Some games are optimized to work on one vendor's card, but are on card from another vendor (i.e. fast on NVidia, slow on ATI. Or fast on ATI, and has glitches on NVidia). Just see official support thread for any game, and you'll see how good windows is for playing games.

Yeah, but how did it work? :scratch:

Fast enough, as I heard. Launching crysis requires GeForce 8 series. On lower (7 series) cards you'll still be able to run crysis, but you'll get ton of artifacts.

Huh. And here I thought you needed and uber computer and Vista just to get the splash screen.

Crysis works on WinXP. Without DirectX10, which means no highest quality render. You'll be able to run it on 2GB RAM, dual-core cpu and GeForce 8 videocard. The game itself is cr@p, though.

[You are blowing your own argument. Obviously the game runs smoother and looks better in Vista with DX-10.

Saying the game is cr@p does nothing to support your argument that Linux is as good as Windows 3d wise.

[ Meanwhile, OP with 1 post has vanished off into the intertubes... ]

I'm not.

No, not obviously, since you didn't provide any proof of that.
Look, if you are after games that support "DirectX 10", this is your problem, and doesn't prove anything. 3D isn't only about DirectX 10. There is fine thing called OpenGL 2.0, which is widely supported. DirectX 10 is a bad argument. It is available only on one version of Windows, and I didn't see that many games that won't work without it. For example, recently arrived Fallout 3 doesn't need it all. Same is true about "Spore". Technical specification of DirectX 10 isn't very exciting, and the list of games that NEED it isn't nearly large enough.

You probably didn't notice part about "programmer's experience" and windows driver bugs.

Anyway, I believe I wrote quite a huge post about DirectX 10 one year ago, and I don't want to do it again. The discussion obviously took wrong turn so I'm leaving it. Bye.

Windows is a tool for the rich.
It keeps people dumb because it's so easy to use and it does enough to keep dumb people happy.

Linux is a tool for the mind.
It's so damn quirky and sometimes "hair-pulling" that you'll end up getting smarter after all the reading, trials and tribulations, and long evenings trying to get it working properly again after a bad update if you choose to stick with it.

its not nessecarily easy to use, just people are used to it. I think windows is hard to use.

Studies have shown that if you've never used a computer before, MS is no easier/more intuitive than Linux or Mac.
For most people its what they're used to (had to learn at work if nothing else)

^
I don't buy it.

Studies show whatever else depending on how elaborate them, just like benchmarks. So I don't buy that either. It might or might not be true, I just wanted to say that the study doesn't necessarily reflect the truth. I see that on TV advertising every day, telling me how a given product is 50% more efficient than another, or double as tasty than another, or how X-potion rejuvenates you exactly 2.7 years or machine_Y will allow your muscles to grow exactly 10 times more than their competitor's machine.

Such kind of stuff that it doesn't really make any sense and it's just empty speech because we are counting things that can't be measured. So, aiming for credibility, I would avoid these kind of arguments.

I only have my experience, and from that, I can tell you that a person that doesn't know a thing about computers really don't find windows or linux any more easy that the counterpart. I have also tested this with msoffice vs openoffice. People with no previous background, in general terms, find it to be the same learning one or another.

Of course, there might be occasions where a given person mental model is more adequate for one of the other thing, but in general terms, and at user level, I haven't noticed any big difference. It's also true that the first thing to learn condition the learning experience in the future. We always tend to assimilate (in the greatest and wider meaning of that word) the things depending on our previous experiences.

First and the foremost difference b/w both OS's is Linux is Linux and Windows is Windows:-). Secondly Linux is Unix based operating system and Windows is not.. The basic Philosophies of both plate forms are opposite..

Linux: Distribute source code and make it better and the best, because more genius people are out there to contribute..

Windows: Hide every bit of code and make $'s of every single line..:-)

I would say that from the point of view of the stereotypical average user just starting with computing, that Windows and GNU/Linux present an equal learning curve. For those with many years experience of Windows and who are set in their ways and unwilling to ditch preconceived ideas, GNU/Linux will be hard. I only had a couple of years or so with Windows before I latched on to GNU/Linux, so I have little difficulty adjusting. To me, GNU/Linux is much more interesting, there's so much more you can learn - depending on how deep you want to go. With Windows, more or less, only the shallow end is available.

Read the EULA carefully and you will believe ...

I would definately dispute that, windows is "windows" and a few programs likes Word, Excel, IE. on the other hand Linux (the platform) is a zillion different distros with the choice of a zillion different GUI's and a zillion zillion different applications. ergo "windows" (the platform) is easier to learn. Plus windows holds your hand with "user-friendly" (i.e. noob friendly) interaces where as Linux, generally speaking, is about as noob friendly as... I don't know.. an anti-noob landmine - or something.

I think it is more appropriate (in the context of noobs) to say that with windows, more or less, only the shallow end is neccessary.

So I guess windows holds your hand when you have to edit the registry?, or how about when you go to install it with the text based interface?, windows does not hold your hand more then ubuntu does. Not to mention, just because linux has a lot more choice does not mean its harder to learn because most people just use the most popular distro(ubuntu right now) and they just use the apps that go with it, so no, unless ubuntu installs a "zillion zillion applications", they don't usually have to chose.

Here's an example of noob-friendliness:

I equipped two clueless noobs (computer noobs, not just Linux noobs) with notebooks and Ubuntu pre-installed. They seem to get along with it just fine. And now they have bought HP all-in-one printers.

They looked at the CD and the installation instructions and turned to me. It was so much Chinese to them: install this first, plug in printer, turn printer on, continue to install that, get a shitload of software you don't need, provide an internet conenction to download yet more software you don't need, yadda yadda.

I told them just to plug the printers in and switch them on. Ubuntu took care of the rest. So much for noob-friendliness in Windows.

Robin

Hi,

M$ Windows is a tool. GNU/Linux is a tool. Just like Proto, Snapon or Craftsman are tools. Some prefer one over the other.

Some get the job done better as far as the 'USER' is concerned. If my lively hood depended on the tool then I would not be using Craftsman but Snapon which does have a better feel but expensive. Just like a OS, some people are forced to use M$ by their employers/clients.

That's the way it is. Sure GNU/Linux is better and is getting more acceptance then ever before. The in-fighting doesn't help that much with everyone tearing things down. The 'OS' is a 'TOOL' not a religion. If you think otherwise then fine but let it rest since we have enough zealots in this world today.

My opinion is that I really think this thread is getting out of hand and this debate has been hammered to death so many times in the past. It should be moved to 'General'.

I did read it. You have choice whether to accept it or not. They offer you OS on their conditions. If you don't like conditions, you won't get OS. Pretty easy, and choice is yours.

Right ... except you have to click next.

Well, sandypeter111, you seem to have stirred things up a bit.

Let me see if I can give you any information that will help you. I am very new to Linux and come from Windows.

There are a lot of differences, as there is between either of them and a Mac system.

Two things that you need to consider is what you do with your computer, and what hardware you have. I do not play any games at all so the compatability with games is not a concern, it may be with you. Most computers are made for and sold with an OS.

The reason that you have problems getting games and hardware to work on Linux is that both are made to run on Windows or Mac or both. More companies are considering Linux when developing hardware and programs all the time. The developers of Linux and its' many "flavors" also do a great job of making these things work under Linux.

We bought a new computer (Dell XPX420 240gig quad CPU 3gig ram) with Vista Home Premium. Both my wife and I thought it was about all we could stand and decided to migrate completely away from MS products. This is a very nice box but the winmodem (yes we are in a remote area and use dialup) wasn't much good on Vista and would cost money to get to be that good under Ubuntu (the Linux flavor we use). I replaced it with a hardware modem, works great, took a little work. Our old HP printer would not work under Linux (one of the few HP printers that won't, lucky us). Got a different HP, works as well or better than under Vista.

You need to check your hardware. A live CD of a distro can help with this.

If you are going to get a new computer, go somewhere that is familiar with Linux and get one that has the right hardware in the first place and you should have little or no problems.

I could rant about why you should flee Windows but you must realize that or you wouldn't be here. There is a learning curve. there was the first time you used Windows and would be if you switched to Mac. I think it is fun.

I did dual boot Ubuntu 8.04.1 with Ubuntu 8.04.1 so that we can use one and I can "play" with the other.

I would also recommend the last, not the newest stable release of any Linux flavor. The bugs are worked out.

Go for it and have fun.

99% of windows users (if not more, much more) will never do either of those things nor ever need to.

But to learn a "Platform" is a different concept. if someone "learns" windows, they will be familiar with the windows GUI and the Microsoft apps - take them to any other windows PC, anywhere in the world and their learned skills (for that platform) are still precisely relevant. My point is that just finding two linux based systems that have the same distro/gui/apps would be a minor miracle.

That's all very well but what if the printer driver isn't in linux or if printing just isn't setup full stop? then those noobs are in a world of hurt, where as with windows all they have to do is put the cd in the drive (it will auto load) then click in the "install driver" option from the menu. not to mention many printers will just plug and play in windows anyway.


Personally I view linux as a hobby rather than a practical solution (for a simple desktop user), one thing I would never to is give a linux install to a non techie person.

I don't know about you, but I find most people generally use the same apps. Most people either use gnome or kde and for office most people use Openoffice. Its far from a miracle to find the same distro/qui/apps. Generally, the only people that run obscure stuff are the people that know what they are doing, eg. people that know what they are doing would use latex instead of OpenOffice.org Writer.

Most printers will plug and play in linux too. Windows drivers don't always work that way. Look at people upgrading to windows vista, and all of sudden their printers don't work and they are in "a world of hurt". If the "noobs" use a "noob" oriented distro like ubuntu, it usually installs a driver for their printer for them if one exists, which it does 95% of the time.
Actually, people that have used windows for a long time will have a harder time switching then someone who hasn't. a windows "Power User" will find linux very confusing but someone who hasn't got used to the "windowsisms" they will not find it any more confusing then switching from windows 2k to xp because they haven't got used to it yet and they don't know what they are doing anyways, so it doesn't really matter what os they use, they will still get confused.