8 réponses
Already the philosophy is different, Linux is about sharing, it's community-driven, not dependent on a company
everyone can contribute
for example:
if you notice a bug in Windows, you have to wait for the next update, and sometimes it takes a really long time (at least a month)! in Linux, you notice a bug, you report it, and the problem is fixed within two days at most
next, the folder system is better organized, you don’t have C:, D:, F;, etc. when your disk is partitioned
you have "/" and everything is there, all your partitions!
finally, these are just a few examples, the only common point between Windows and any Linux distribution is that they are operating systems, aside from that ... honestly EVERYTHING is different except maybe the software available on both (GIMP, Firefox, OOo, ...)!
that’s why personally I prefer that someone enters the Linux world with full knowledge of the facts, rather than promoting it to everyone and then having them be turned off by it
Linux is not better than Windows, it is different
everyone can contribute
for example:
if you notice a bug in Windows, you have to wait for the next update, and sometimes it takes a really long time (at least a month)! in Linux, you notice a bug, you report it, and the problem is fixed within two days at most
next, the folder system is better organized, you don’t have C:, D:, F;, etc. when your disk is partitioned
you have "/" and everything is there, all your partitions!
finally, these are just a few examples, the only common point between Windows and any Linux distribution is that they are operating systems, aside from that ... honestly EVERYTHING is different except maybe the software available on both (GIMP, Firefox, OOo, ...)!
that’s why personally I prefer that someone enters the Linux world with full knowledge of the facts, rather than promoting it to everyone and then having them be turned off by it
Linux is not better than Windows, it is different
@sosonana :
What differentiates Linux from Windows, in addition to the philosophy of free software, also concerns, as you say, the graphical side and virus attacks.
- regarding free software: the advantage is that under Linux, one can access powerful and advanced tools to do a lot of things (equivalent or superior depending on the fields) without worrying about the usage license. To master it, there is just a learning curve like with anything else. But the documentation is very comprehensive and often already integrated into the system itself, not to mention the internet.
- On the graphical side: the advantage of Linux is that one can have a customized graphical interface without having to resort to third-party and paid software. The change can be total. Some might say that you can do the same under Windows, but the concept was born under Linux. :) Under Windows, a lot of things are also inspired by Unix.
The downside is that it can sometimes be tedious under Linux depending on the level of experience.
- On the virus side: Linux being less widespread than Windows, hackers tend to focus more on the latter. So Linux users don’t have that kind of problems unless they are targeted by particularly focused attacks. That said, under Linux, one doesn't spend their time optimizing, cleaning, restarting, and securing their system.
In short, regarding the drawbacks, under Windows, one spends more time securing their system, while under Linux, one spends more time learning about computers. :)
What differentiates Linux from Windows, in addition to the philosophy of free software, also concerns, as you say, the graphical side and virus attacks.
- regarding free software: the advantage is that under Linux, one can access powerful and advanced tools to do a lot of things (equivalent or superior depending on the fields) without worrying about the usage license. To master it, there is just a learning curve like with anything else. But the documentation is very comprehensive and often already integrated into the system itself, not to mention the internet.
- On the graphical side: the advantage of Linux is that one can have a customized graphical interface without having to resort to third-party and paid software. The change can be total. Some might say that you can do the same under Windows, but the concept was born under Linux. :) Under Windows, a lot of things are also inspired by Unix.
The downside is that it can sometimes be tedious under Linux depending on the level of experience.
- On the virus side: Linux being less widespread than Windows, hackers tend to focus more on the latter. So Linux users don’t have that kind of problems unless they are targeted by particularly focused attacks. That said, under Linux, one doesn't spend their time optimizing, cleaning, restarting, and securing their system.
In short, regarding the drawbacks, under Windows, one spends more time securing their system, while under Linux, one spends more time learning about computers. :)
Hello
Inux?
Aren't you rather talking about Unix?
--
As for these fierce soldiers, I'm saying it, it's not to gossip, but all they do is bellow in our countryside.
Inux?
Aren't you rather talking about Unix?
--
As for these fierce soldiers, I'm saying it, it's not to gossip, but all they do is bellow in our countryside.
unix, not inux, the difference: unix is a large family that includes mac linux openBSD etc ... linux is a subfamily that also includes other subsets like ubuntu mandriva red hat ... the list is long!!!
The question is poorly phrased, because everything is source code originally, but the source code of Linux is available for free, if I'm not mistaken, unlike Unix which is closed,
if you want to retrieve the source code good luck I've never checked but basically, it's not for newbies and you really have to want it! (I've heard it's around 18 GiB...);-)
address: https://www.kernel.org/
if you want to retrieve the source code good luck I've never checked but basically, it's not for newbies and you really have to want it! (I've heard it's around 18 GiB...);-)
address: https://www.kernel.org/
GNU is not Unix. Thus GNU/Linux is not a subclass of Unix but rather a kernel whose development is independent, around which free tools and software that comply with the POSIX standard are structured.
UNIX is merely a model of an OS. It no longer really belongs to anyone except perhaps SCO.
Every OS has its kernel, but what Unix-like systems have in common, aside from adhering to the same standard, is having the same type of directory structure according to the model:
/bin
/boot
/etc
/home
/sbin
/usr
/proc
/var
etc...
All systems that have more or less this directory structure are UNIX systems except for those that have a kernel under GNU license. It's purely philosophical.
UNIX is merely a model of an OS. It no longer really belongs to anyone except perhaps SCO.
Every OS has its kernel, but what Unix-like systems have in common, aside from adhering to the same standard, is having the same type of directory structure according to the model:
/bin
/boot
/etc
/home
/sbin
/usr
/proc
/var
etc...
All systems that have more or less this directory structure are UNIX systems except for those that have a kernel under GNU license. It's purely philosophical.
I just understood better, thank you for your response, and I have another question if you want. What characterizes Linux compared to Windows? Is it the graphical aspect and vulnerability to viruses, or are there other things? Thank you in advance.
I fully share the views of Aka Shiva or Strato boy.
It is true that, in essence, Linux is not "better," just different.
And for good reason, although using Linux at home, by taking the time to do some comparative tests, one quickly realizes that certain Windows OS are of excellent quality.
It is true that Linux may take a bit longer to get used to, partly because:
- People have preconceived notions (sometimes justified)
- People have habits with Windows
Nevertheless:
- I know several cases of children (with little history on Windows) who adapted quite naturally to Linux
- I have successfully helped several people in my circle quickly and easily switch to Linux using advanced distributions recognized for their ease of use (Ubuntu, Mandriva, SuSE)
With Linux, the advantages certainly include finding very good quality open-source software.
However, most of this software is also available for Windows, which allows everyone to significantly reduce their software costs (we often forget to take this parameter into consideration).
So why not stay on Windows?
A Windows system equipped with free software is very nice, it works well.
But as you've been pointed out, Linux today is used too little to interest virus developers (less than 2% of Linux users in France according to my measurements).
The day Linux becomes more popular among the general public, virus developers will create viruses for Linux. It's just a matter of money. An infected PC (under control) can be sold for about 25 cents (it used to be much more), however, you can multiply that by several tens of thousands and you'll understand that hacking can be a lucrative profession.
Furthermore, it is true that graphically, the interest lies in being able to choose your interface:
- there are several dozen
- each of these interfaces also has dozens of different themes
- moreover, they are also largely modifiable in terms of ergonomics.
--
Old PIII clocked at 900 MHZ - Ubuntu 9.04 - Enlightenment E16
It is true that, in essence, Linux is not "better," just different.
And for good reason, although using Linux at home, by taking the time to do some comparative tests, one quickly realizes that certain Windows OS are of excellent quality.
It is true that Linux may take a bit longer to get used to, partly because:
- People have preconceived notions (sometimes justified)
- People have habits with Windows
Nevertheless:
- I know several cases of children (with little history on Windows) who adapted quite naturally to Linux
- I have successfully helped several people in my circle quickly and easily switch to Linux using advanced distributions recognized for their ease of use (Ubuntu, Mandriva, SuSE)
With Linux, the advantages certainly include finding very good quality open-source software.
However, most of this software is also available for Windows, which allows everyone to significantly reduce their software costs (we often forget to take this parameter into consideration).
So why not stay on Windows?
A Windows system equipped with free software is very nice, it works well.
But as you've been pointed out, Linux today is used too little to interest virus developers (less than 2% of Linux users in France according to my measurements).
The day Linux becomes more popular among the general public, virus developers will create viruses for Linux. It's just a matter of money. An infected PC (under control) can be sold for about 25 cents (it used to be much more), however, you can multiply that by several tens of thousands and you'll understand that hacking can be a lucrative profession.
Furthermore, it is true that graphically, the interest lies in being able to choose your interface:
- there are several dozen
- each of these interfaces also has dozens of different themes
- moreover, they are also largely modifiable in terms of ergonomics.
--
Old PIII clocked at 900 MHZ - Ubuntu 9.04 - Enlightenment E16
