On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 at 09:47:22AM +0000, Cayenne-uk wrote:
> I came across this little nugget today. It looks like it has been around a
> while, so it may not be so new to some of you. It is an interesting
> discussion on the merits of Linux not being a Windows clone. It is quite a
> long piece, so I haven't read all of it yet, and of the bits I have read
> there are statements I don't agree with. But it is an interesting read
> anyway.
>
> http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
I've seen something similar recently, but can't for the life of me find it.
Basically GNU/Linux is an open source clone of Unix that runs on PCs, it builds
on a long line of Unix concepts dating back to 1970. Windows is a proprietary GUI
built on a mishmash of PC software systems that Microsoft copied/stole/wrote
going back to the 1980s.
They have converged now with a GUI that can look similar, they both can
run on PC hardware and can run similar software, but their heritages are totally
distinct. It's not surprising that they are quite different:
* Windows doesn't run on a wide range of hardware, Linux does
* Windows wasn't designed for multiple users, Linux was
* Windows has a rich culture of games, Linux doesn't
* There is a vast collection of software designed for Unix that runs on Linux,
but not on Windows
* Linux/Unix history is of servers and workstations, Windows is of desktop PCs
They can do the same things, e.g. be used to surf, send emails, run basic software,
but there are lots of things Linux can't yet to (e.g. games and viruses), and lots
of things Windows doesn't do either (super computing, lots of scientific software).
--
Adam Trickett
Overton, HANTS, UK
To send one out of office message may be considered
unfortunate, but to send two looks like cluelessness.
-- Simon Cozens
