Question

Linux vs Windows

By WittyChick225 ·
Advantages to Linux
5 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Answers

Collapse -

Linux vs Windows

by michealethan234 In reply to Linux vs Windows

Users who are considering making a change from Windows to Linux or Linux to Windows commonly want to know the advantages and disadvantages of each of the operating systems. Below is a chart to help illustrate the major advantages and disadvantages of each of these operating systems.

Collapse -

Linux as a programming environment

by john.a.wills In reply to Linux vs Windows

should be the question at issue. Linux is a variant of Unix, which is the poorest mainframe programming environment I have worked in. My others are: GeOrgE II and III on Executive on ICL 1900, BS3 on TR 440, Cyber on CDC 6600, PrimOS on Prime 500, MPE on HP 3000, ISPF on TSO on MVS on IBM 370 etc. and whatever it was called on UniSys 2200. I stumbled a bit on ICL, and it was along time ago, and there were stupid problems with it, but at least it had firm line numbers (for that matter, so had Burroughs Medium System). I do not understand why Unix is so popular, still less why there is so much enthusiasm for its new version, Linux, which still does not have firm line numbers.

Collapse -

There Are Lots of Variables

by CFWhitman In reply to Linux vs Windows

There are lots of variables to be considered. Are we talking about desktop use, software or web development, server use? We can continue to get more specific.

If you are looking at it from a desktop use perspective, then general advantages are things like:
-Linux is what I like to call "better behaved." That is, it does what you tell it to rather than trying to guess what you want, prevent you from doing something Microsoft doesn't approve of, or shield you from something too technical.
-Regular system updates of a stable distribution (as opposed to rolling releases) are faster, more complete (that is, cover more of your software), and more reliable than in Windows (less likely to mess up your system).
-Up until Windows 10, system upgrades in many Linux distributions were more of a true upgrade rather than a parallel install followed by a transfer of your programs, documents, and settings. Of course the Microsoft path is more likely to leave your system itself without little glitches to be fixed, but also more likely to leave a program installation in disarray. Linux also has the option to keep a separate home directory and just do a system re-install, which is similar to the Microsoft approach, but more manual. Windows 10, though, is supposed to be more like a rolling release in Linux, which is likely to mean even less stability to regular updates.
-Linux has options that let it run reasonably well on more modest hardware. There are Linux distribution/desktop combinations that are lighter on resources than Windows XP, including hard drive space. Windows 10 is lighter on every resource other than hard drive space than Windows 7, but not as light as XP. I currently have an old netbook from 2008 that is difficult to run XP on because both drives are 8 GB, and Windows XP updates will run out of room in that much space (though you can remove backups of updated files, switch the page file to the other drive, etc. to get XP to work in that much space). I can run Debian 8 with no problem thanks to both less space being used by the system, and the option to make the system see the drives as one larger drive rather than two small ones.
-This relates to the first point, but just generally, you are more in control with Linux (or at least as much as you want to be).

Collapse -

Linux is more secure than windows.

by jainrani In reply to Linux vs Windows

Linux systems are by no means infallible, but one of their key advantages lies in the way account privileges are assigned. In Windows, users are generally given administrator access by default, which means they pretty much have access to everything on the system, even its most crucial parts. So, then, do viruses. It's like giving terrorists high-level government positions.

With Linux, on the other hand, users do not usually have such "root" privileges; rather, they're typically given lower-level accounts. What that means is that even if a Linux system is compromised, the virus won't have the root access it would need to do damage system wide; more likely, just the user's local files and programs would be affected. That can make the difference between a minor annoyance and a major catastrophe in any business setting.

http://computerscienceassignments.com

Collapse -

TechRepublic

by reeshyam In reply to Linux is more secure than ...

hi
welcome to this forum site , here you can find lots of things , i suggest you , for your question you have to contact any other expert , right now i have no knowledge about your query sorry for that .

Back to Linux Forum
5 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums