By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
464,271 Members | 1,289 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 464,271 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Difference between Linux and Windows

P: 9
Anyone please expalin the difference between Linux and Windows

why linux is used as Servers in many companies than windows
why linux is less virus effected
Concept behind opensource
Sep 17 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
11 Replies

P: 11
Anyone please expalin the difference between Linux and Windows

why linux is used as Servers in many companies than windows
why linux is less virus effected
Concept behind opensource

Linux is growing in the market not only because of its open source but also bcoz of its security reasons.In linux we have file attributes such as read write and execute.Only authorized persons can modify the settings of a file.So its full of security i.e unless u give write permission to a file it other users cannot write t it .And linux its basically build on unix which supports multiuser concept has more flexibility .Open source means u can see the code of the files which r not shown in windows and modification is also possible here.
Sep 17 '06 #2

P: 9
Linux is growing in the market not only because of its open source but also bcoz of its security reasons.In linux we have file attributes such as read write and execute.Only authorized persons can modify the settings of a file.So its full of security i.e unless u give write permission to a file it other users cannot write t it .And linux its basically build on unix which supports multiuser concept has more flexibility .Open source means u can see the code of the files which r not shown in windows and modification is also possible here.
Can u explain in detail how inux security differ from windows?
Sep 18 '06 #3

P: 1
Anyone please expalin the difference between Linux and Windows

why linux is used as Servers in many companies than windows
why linux is less virus effected
Concept behind opensource
I have just taken a really inexpenseive but very impressive linux certification course at www.linuxselfstudy.com. It is self paced, inexpensive (thousand less than their competitors) and the videos are amazing.
It will answer all of your quesitons.
Sep 21 '06 #4

10K+
P: 13,262
One of the reasons why most virus attack windows systems and not linux is to do with the .exe format of most viruses. Because windows systems became very popular and windows runs .exes, practically every virus manufacturer coded viruses as .exe files. Linux does not neccessarily run .exe files so a .exe virus would find it difficult(to say the least to affect a linux system)
Sep 22 '06 #5

100+
P: 143
One of the reasons why most virus attack windows systems and not linux is to do with the .exe format of most viruses. Because windows systems became very popular and windows runs .exes, practically every virus manufacturer coded viruses as .exe files. Linux does not neccessarily run .exe files so a .exe virus would find it difficult(to say the least to affect a linux system)
That's completely wrong.

A file extension means nothing.

The reason why viruses flurish on windows systems and not linux systems, is because in linux, users typically don't run as root. When you install linux, you also setup an everyday user. That's the general mindset of linux users. "Never run as root".

This essentially means that the users can't make any changes to files that could cripple the system. For example, I can't go ahead and delete the root directory of my HD. I can't go and delete the core files that linux needs to run. I can't make any modiciations, as my normal user, to any of the files that are important to the running of the system. So it's secure in that respect.

A good majority of windows users run as Administrator. They can make modifications to any files they want. So when they download a virus, they run it as the root user, the virus has access to all the files and resources that the user does.

So... in short. The reason viruses don't really exist on linux, is because most users don't run as a user with privaledges that could damage the system, therefore rendering any viruses useless. The worst a virus in linux could do, is delete the users home directory contents (akin to deleting your documents and settings folder).

There are many other differences security wise, but this is a key aspect.


As for other differences between the two, well - that's huge.

Linux isn't, as many believe, a form of UNIX. It's a unix-like Operating System. In fact, Linux is only the kernel, the core of the OS. It's a UNIX clone, created because the programmer wanted a free unix-like OS. The actual OS itself is GNU, which is used in conjunction with the Linux kernel to form a complete operating system.

GNU/Linux is also POSIX compliant and has real multi-user capabilities. Just bang: linux windows differences, into google and see what you can find.
Sep 27 '06 #6

10K+
P: 13,262
That's completely wrong.

A file extension means nothing.

The reason why viruses flurish on windows systems and not linux systems, is because in linux, users typically don't run as root. When you install linux, you also setup an everyday user. That's the general mindset of linux users. "Never run as root".

This essentially means that the users can't make any changes to files that could cripple the system. For example, I can't go ahead and delete the root directory of my HD. I can't go and delete the core files that linux needs to run. I can't make any modiciations, as my normal user, to any of the files that are important to the running of the system. So it's secure in that respect.

A good majority of windows users run as Administrator. They can make modifications to any files they want. So when they download a virus, they run it as the root user, the virus has access to all the files and resources that the user does.

So... in short. The reason viruses don't really exist on linux, is because most users don't run as a user with privaledges that could damage the system, therefore rendering any viruses useless. The worst a virus in linux could do, is delete the users home directory contents (akin to deleting your documents and settings folder).

There are many other differences security wise, but this is a key aspect.


As for other differences between the two, well - that's huge.

Linux isn't, as many believe, a form of UNIX. It's a unix-like Operating System. In fact, Linux is only the kernel, the core of the OS. It's a UNIX clone, created because the programmer wanted a free unix-like OS. The actual OS itself is GNU, which is used in conjunction with the Linux kernel to form a complete operating system.

GNU/Linux is also POSIX compliant and has real multi-user capabilities. Just bang: linux windows differences, into google and see what you can find.
Being aware that not all programs that run on windows run on linux, wouldn't you therefore agree that certain viruses that run on windows cannot run on linux for this reason alone? Security is only one of the reasons (for certain viruses). Even if a user logs on a windows system with minimum priveledges, they will still be attacked if they do not have adequate protection.
Sep 28 '06 #7

100+
P: 143
Being aware that not all programs that run on windows run on linux, wouldn't you therefore agree that certain viruses that run on windows cannot run on linux for this reason alone? Security is only one of the reasons (for certain viruses). Even if a user logs on a windows system with minimum priveledges, they will still be attacked if they do not have adequate protection.
That's something I mentioned on another thread in this forum.

If a virus is coded for a windows machine, it won't run on a linux machine.

It's possible to create cross platform programs, but then, even the directory structure and file layouts are completely different in Linux than they are in Windows, then even after that, you have the permissions issue.

I haven't used windows seriously in a good few years, so I'm not sure about the current set of NT based systems, but I'd like to hope that if you weren't logged in using an admin account, you couldn't do any damage to stop the running of the computer. I'm sure you don't (and thus any programs you run as that user) have any access to important system files.
Sep 29 '06 #8

10K+
P: 13,262

I haven't used windows seriously in a good few years, so I'm not sure about the current set of NT based systems, but I'd like to hope that if you weren't logged in using an admin account, you couldn't do any damage to stop the running of the computer. I'm sure you don't (and thus any programs you run as that user) have any access to important system files.
How you log on to your system may be different from how the virus gets acces to your system(Especially if the virus is very good(or is it bad?)).
Sep 29 '06 #9

P: 34
Naaaah, it's just the Linux VS MS question again... what about Novell NetWare, OpenVMS, SCO UNIX etc...

I guess the OS where the admin can work on best, that OS will be implemented in the network.
Nov 10 '06 #10

P: 1
Anyone please expalin the difference between Linux and Windows

why linux is used as Servers in many companies than windows
why linux is less virus effected
Concept behind opensource
Here's my perspective. I ran the Lorma Linux, a distribution that was intended to be so simple that children could boot up and install it from a CD. That part was true. My whole family had 7 logins plus root. We ran it for over two years until it had a hardware problem. Now I don't know how to recover it. More, I never successfully installed any software on it... everything we used for the two years was there when it was built by the distro. I asked for help frequently, but I speak mainframe IMS, DB2, and PCM/DOS/Windows3.0 to current. I never understood any of the installation instructions I was given and the two books did not help either. The most important thing I ever did was learn to have the machine boot into the KDE desktop without knowing any UNIX console commands.

So yes I ran linux and it was free from viruses and other problems. We shared files and printers with Windows computers. Linux was a true multi-user system and allowed switching users without closing apps. Try that in the latest windows and you'll have problems even with MS Office and other MS code, much more if you run Open Office like I do.

On Open Source... I run Open Office on Windows everywhere and have since Star Office 5.0 was given away for free by Sun. OO 2.0 is so good that I hate working in Word or Excel 2003 on my office PC. But OO 2.0 Presentation is not ready for prime time... as a replacement for PowerPoint. I create presentations with it but always check them with the free Powerpoint Viewer 2003 from MS. The OO 2.0 playback has no option to see speaker notes and neither does the free MSPPV 2003. So if you need speaker notes you still have to pay to see them... OO can only create notes.

That said, I am always shocked how many people tell me that they "HAVE TO BUY OFFICE" for their computer. So open source is free, but no one knows about it. And there's no advertising budget for it. If every user had to pay $5 and the fund went to advertizing and putting CDs into the 7-11 stores like AOL then MS would be out of business in a month.

BTW my latest Open Source acquisition is GIMP 2.2 which is a free alternative to Photo Shop at about $700 if you download it directly from Adobe. I have used it a little and it appears very solid. If I had more art or photo shop background I might be handy with it. So far a simple red eye redo took about one hour and covering a booboo on the bride's ring finger also took that long, but now I understand how to use the airbrush, color picker, and smudge tools. So I'll be faster next time.
Nov 30 '06 #11

P: 4
Anyone please expalin the difference between Linux and Windows

why linux is used as Servers in many companies than windows
why linux is less virus effected
Concept behind opensource
linux and windows started of aimed at different end users. Linux was designed from the start to be networked, so anti-virus features are built in, and being used as a server was an early use. Windows was designed with the home user in mind and to work out of the box.

With time what you see has become more similar -- now many Linux systems work out of the box, and windows XP imitates some of the features linux, eg forking etc.

Though commericial Linux systems exists, apple now uses darwin linux, for many people the big difference is cost -- I have linux running on six machines at the moment, if I was to buy windows software then for the same amount of money I could only run two machines.

When I first change from windows to linux 5 years ago I missed some windows programs, but now when I have to use windows, I miss the things that I can do on Linux but not on windows.

For those who like to "tinker" with software, then the opensource nature of Linux is a definite plus. In such an enviroment a "hacker" can become a developer -- and if one wants to even have ones on Linux OS.

The most objective answer is that it depends what you want to do as to which OS is best.

John

The most objective
Dec 1 '06 #12

Post your reply

Sign in to post your reply or Sign up for a free account.