Talk:Comparison of Windows and Linux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is archived here, please read.

This article was nominated for deletion on January 14, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on July 30, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Need for Comparing Licensing. 2 This article is going backwards 3 feel 4 Closed Source or "shared source"? 5 Cleanup 6 UP TIME 7 Servers and Workstations 8 desktop facts - cli confusion 9 Compare Microsoft Windows with one distribution per page. 10 i18n and i10n table.

[edit] Need for Comparing Licensing.

I'm going to add a section on licensing. Anyone who has had to install Windows on sites or manage some Linux boxes would say this is what you spend a lot of time on. It's a significant difference. Ttiotsw 10:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually they have commonality; both Linux distros and Windows are copyrighted. They both have an "EULA", with Linux distros this is usually a click-through asking you to agree to the terms of the GNU GPL v2 and LGPL and maybe any additional licensing for 3rd party apps (which are not GPL/LGPL). With Windows it is the usual commercial contract which you expect with proprietary Software. Practically speaking both are equally complex legal agreements. The difference thus lies in the Terms and Conditions of the licences which can be delegated to another article. The violation of GPL/LGPL is difficult, if not impossible for end-users who do not create new binaries, whereas the violation of the Microsoft EULA is easy to effect (though harder in practice now with licensing keys and anti-piracy mechanisms). Ttiotsw 07:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. The point is how much work you have to put into the informatic system at, say, your company, so that no license infringement happens. With GPL software, very little. With MS EULAs, I'd expect a lot. However, this is more "proprietary vs. free", than "Windows vs. Linux". Anyway, Windows is proprietary, and GNU/Linux is free, so it should be mentioned. — Isilanes 13:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I can say that neither Damn Small Linux nor Ubuntu has an EULA in the install. The place where you find licensing is in the source of each app and in the kernel source. That's probably because you only need to worry about the GPL if you're editing the source. It doesn't restrict handing a copy of the install disc to a friend. The EULA in Windows does restrict this, though, so it is of concern to regular users. Macoafi 07:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So... when are we getting that section about licensing? This is something I myself want to know more about. Hendrixski 19:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is going backwards

I did a great deal of work on this a month ago to add a stronger Windows presence. The tone of the article was as close to neutral as I could get with my dated Linux knowledge. The idea was that those more versed in Linux would then add more specific information from that operating system to support my generalizations.

Instead, most of the relevant Windows information, and even some of the Linux specifics, were thrown away to the detriment of readability and neutrality.

Specific grievances:

• No clarification as to the Windows version or subversion. 'XP' is implied, which ignores historical and future perspective.
• Little continuity between sections. Various subsections have been butchered such that the previous text is now out of context, or suffers poor readability.
• The parts removed tend to be necessary background.
• Huge swaths of the 'stability' and 'games' sections have been removed. Games are one of the primary reasons Windows such a strong desktop presence; how can you ignore that?
• 'Security' is also emasculated; it's all broad strokes, no specifics. If Linux is more secure, I want to know why. The same with Windows.

The tables have improved, but the actual text is far more biased, incomplete, and poorly written than it was in the version I left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_Windows_and_Linux&oldid=93720982

New information from the current article should be integrated into that one, or one of the succeeding revisions with grammatical corrections.

• One more thing -- To do justice to this comparison, additional information beyond the direct scope of the comparison is not only necessary, but required. The line below about 'viruses induced by social engineering' *should* be included on that account, because it impacts the perceieved value of security measures.

You can't assume the reader knows the context. If you write that such and such a feature is an advantage, you have to provide the 'why', even if it's only a generalization. Then you can link somewhere else for the specifics. This is a fundamental tenet of writing these articles; readers shouldn't have to thumb through a dozen additional articles to understand the broad basis of what you're talking about, and why it's relevant.

Relevance is the area the text of this article lacks the most. Too many facts, not enough depth, not enough support.

Dave Indech 14:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should point out what NPOV means for this article. This is NOT meant to say that Linux is better that Windows, nor the opposite. This is NOT meant to say that the two systems are the same, either. Actually, We should make no judgment at all.

So what should we write about? There are plenty of differences between GNU/Linux and Windows so there's plenty of stuff to write. And that's all we should write. The final article will be a guide so that users can say "hey i like this more" or "hey this scares me" and decide which is best for them. If we get it right, we can write something which both Linux-enthusiasts and Windows-enthusiasts will agree upon, each thinking "hey, that's why I like my system!".

No it's not easy. I'm for the Windows side and most of you are not. But professionals should be able to get over that, and only write about facts. Possibly in a tidy and not-too-logorrheic way.

I hope these can be taken as serious guidelines for serious people, preventing article deletion and making this thing actually useful.

--Andylong 21:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:VERIFY. Basically "(1) Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. (2) Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. (3) The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it."

If editors had been following this policy the page wouldn't be such a god awful mess and it wouldn't have been nominated for deletion twice. AlistairMcMillan 21:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to take neutrality for granted in this page. However, yes, "world" data should be verified, characteristics of the single system should be chosen to actually represent it and don't need to be verified if they are clearly part of the system, which everyone can check for himself (I mean we don't need a website to say that the Linux bash is more important to the system than cmd is to Windows).

However, I think we should start changing something:

• First, actually yes, "Windows" and "Linux" both mean nothing. First, we should limit our analysis to today. Nothing about past versions or future expectations. Everything else is a useless contribution to the mess.
• I repeat: usage data, and statistic data in particular, MUST be cited with its source, which must comply with the NPOV requirement. I mean this especially for all which regards servers, which is much more hard to verify. In any case, "Microsoft says this about Windows" and "The open source community says that about Linux" can not be taken for NPOV without any further justification.
• Perhaps we should give up with tables and use a section-subsection structure. This would help keep the article tidy. It's actually impossible (and quite ugly) to fit a (as short as possible) review into a table cell.
• The part about Get The Facts is nonsense and has no reason to be here. What we need is just a short mention to the fact and reactions and a link to its own article (all this stuff here SHOULD be written there ONLY).
• Do we really need a "User focus" comparison? How can it reach NPOV?
• Once again: "Historical" comparisons are useless for this article. What use is it to know (today) that Win95 crashed because of the 16-bit subsystem? that part is for the Windows article.

It's relevant for historical perspective. Windows has a reputation for instability with versions all the way up to ME, which is still in use by some. It's important to clarify why that reputation exists, and how it no longer applies to the current product. Merely saying 'Windows is stable' (particularly without specifying versions; and what's current? XP or Vista?) is inadequate. Dave Indech 01:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I think we should write a complete introduction to the article, stating clearly what it is and what it isn't meant to be. I tan take care of this if needed. What do you think about these points? Post please...

There was an excellent introduction in the older version of the article I linked. It had OS history and clarifications, and some notes as to the expected scope of the comparisons. It was progressively erased until the result what appears now.Dave Indech 01:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

--Andylong 22:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree  this article is moving forward. here's Why:
* More facts, less fluff
* Better organized tables
* Shorter, more to-the-point, sentences in the tables
* Fewer opinionated sentences
* Fewer irrelevant facts, more useful side-by-side comparisons
* Less duplication of information
So stop complaining and keep up the good work! Hendrixski 19:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] feel

there is something about this article that does not feel right. Its not something that you would find in an encyclopedia. If i want to compare the two why dont i just go to the article about windows and the article about linux? Why do we have to have another article that by nature cant inform anymore than the 2 existing articles on each subject matter. Whats next an article that compares Paris Hilton to Lindsay Lohan? Why don't i go across now and create it. See how long it lasts. --220.237.166.156 13:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahh i am an idiot i totally put the wrong tag on. TAking it off now... but i still think this article should be deleted. --220.237.166.156 13:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that there are about 100 or more comparison articles on Wikipedia. So you're wrong! Comparison articles are good, and this article will end up being a really good one because a lot of us are putting a lot of work into it SO STOP TRYING TO GET IT DELETED! Hendrixski 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You are not the master of Wikipedia. If people want it deleted, they go through the process. {Slash-|-Talk} 21:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to be master of anything. I just don't want some 15 year old fan-boy to say "this page isn't pro-Linux, so I'll make them delete it". All I want is for some IT guy to be able to show this page to his boss and say "I think we should use Operating System A for this task, and Operating System B for this task, and here's why". It's a humble goal, but it keeps me motivated to keep improving this page. And I assume that other people have similar motivations, and I'm sure they all felt equally angry when they saw it nominated for deletion. Hendrixski 02:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What I want is for this to go up for deletion again. There was an incredible spike of activity after that nom. {Slash-|-Talk} 07:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this article isn't as bad as the many tags and this discussion imply, but there is a lot of room for improvement. It is perhaps too long to be read by such people who might be interested in this information. There are certainly some minor factual errors. I agree that the "feel" isn't quite right and that we should work on this. But I see no reason for deletion. --Theosch 11:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

While I will concede that the "feel" of this article is not quite there yet, I would like to point out that it "feels" better than what it used to be. If you remember, this used to "feel" a message board between Windows fan-boys and Linux zealots and was very uncomfortable for anyone to read. Now it's pretty sterilized, and _most_ of it is in a NPOV. Perhaps it has become too sterile? Like a hospital. I am interested to hear how we can improve the "feel" of this page even more. Then we can take immediate action and breathe fresh life into it. Hendrixski 15:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing that was bothering me was the hierarchy of the sections: first "Desktop", but then with a lot of sub-sections applying to both desktops and servers, and then a very brief section on servers. I've tried to make this more logical by making all the sub-sections to main sections. --Theosch 09:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the new section ordering! It feels less choppy now. :) A few sections could stand to be merged; perhaps Stability and Security? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hendrixski (talk • contribs) 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Closed Source or "shared source"?

It seems there's a very small edit war going on about whether to list Windows as closed source or as "shared source". Here's why I think "shared source" is the wrong term:

• Shared source refers exclusively to a series of Microsoft Licenses, so it says that says that windows is the most prominent among Microsoft operating systems... not very helpful.
• Closed source refers generally to a market-wide set of licenses, so it says that Windows is the most prominent among a bunch of Operating Systems (for example including OS X)
• When you buy Windows in the store you are not buying it with a shared source license, you buy it with a closed source license
• Shared source is not the default licensing scheme for Windows

However, I do think it is important that we mention shared source elsewhere in the article, because it is important for readers of this article to know that they do have an option of purchasing a different license for Windows. So, do we agree that we call Linux open source and Windows closed source? Hendrixski 17:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, only I think shared source only applies to parts of the Windows OS anyway, and not the whole thing. At least that's what shared source seems to suggest. Shared source needs to be mentioned, but in general the term "closed source" is appropriate, as that's the only option most customers get. I suggest something like "Windows is closed source, although some code is made available to its partners through Microsoft's shared source program". --h2g2bob 19:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I tried to clear up some of the confusion with the shared source thing... Let me know what you think of how it's currently phrased. BTW, shared source is important, it's very helpful for many businesses to know such an option exists. We should assess where else in the document we may put references to Shared Source.Hendrixski 14:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The third paragraph has improved significantly, but the first paragraph seems to have a lot of more useless info. I'll hold off and see where the article goes. However, from the points raised above, I now support the term "closed source". {Slash-|-Talk} 05:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I've changed a few small things and deleted some paragraphs which I feel are superfluous, not easily comprehensible, or conjecture. I think we could remove the not NPOV tag from the section Usability now. Agree? --Theosch 16:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it isn't biased either way, but the section makes both operating systems seem excellent. If someone removed the promotional garbage from either one (Windows, Linux), then the whole section would be biased all over again. {Slash-|-Talk} 06:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned / removed a link to a linux worm this was actually a phpBB worm that will also affect Windows PHP servers http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4117711.stm 81.101.118.64 04:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UP TIME

Reference 24 is now dead!!

[edit] Servers and Workstations

Well... This section was forgotten about, and it really needs some TLC. So I moved it to the top because probably 90% of our edits happen in the top few sections. :) Please feel free to bring some sunshine to this section. Hendrixski 16:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] desktop facts - cli confusion

on the linux part options are for instance gnome terminal according to this article. Shouldn't it be more something like bash, dash or maybe even a link to unix shell?NESFreak 16:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compare Microsoft Windows with one distribution per page.

I generally think it's a very very bad idea to compare one operating system (or a few very similar operating systems) with a huge mass of very different operating system, just because that huge mass of operating systems share one thing in common.

One of the reasons I think this is a bad idea is because the pictire it paints will often be that the one operating system (Windows) will be very uniform and neat and reliable compare to the huge mass, while the huge mass may in fact be quite different. It is also more or less impossible to make good hardware support comparissons in such an article -- for example there is nothing about which processors the operating systems support or what kind of hardware it can run on.

I suggest we split this into at least three group of pages or subsections: Windows and Linux on embedded systems (PDA, phones and other such things), Windows and Linux before 2000 (0x, SE and ME) and finally Windows and Linux after 2000 (2000, XP and later -- possibly also Vista, if that's not a fourth page). A possible Windows NT < 5 and Linux comparisson would be a new idea too.

I think this article is completly on the wrong track when it tries to describe two families of operating system in one article, since the comparissons a person wants to read heavily depends on why he needs it. If I want to setup a webserver for example, I could care less about window managers and desktop environments, but would be very interested in performance, stability, requirements and options. On the other hand, if I where to just build a gaming box I would want to know about price, game support and driver support mainly.

Linux distributions are extremely varied -- some of them are tailored for one specific task or type of user or environment (Familiar), while others are general purpose operating systems (Fedora, Debian). Most of these run on a lot of different hardware platforms, including the ARM line of processors, MIPS, x86, Power PC, Sparc and a host of others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrederikHertzum (talk • contribs) 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] i18n and i10n table.

I plan a table on this. The main sections are,

Install time language selection

---

Most retail Windows allow for a 1-off selection of language for the installation and OS but this cannot be altered subsequently. Installation media may only be localised into one language. With Windows it is difficult to obtain a language other than the local language of the country you are located in.

Most retail Linux distribution allow for language selection at installation time and allow for subsequent selection on a per-user basis. Smaller distributions may only be localised into a few languages and some purpose-specific distributions may only be available in English.

Runtime language selection

---

Most retail Windows cannot allow per-user selection on the language at logon for menus and dialogs. Other versions of Windows can allow per-user selection of the language but the Multi-language extensions are not available through normal retail channels.

Most retail Linux distribution allow per-user selection on the language at logon for menus and dialogs. Smaller distributions may only be localised into a few languages and some purpose-specific distributions may only be available in English.

Localisation (i10n)

---

Windows is localised into all major languages.

Linus distributions on the whole are localised into all major languages.

---

snip-------

Comments. Obviously need some cites to pad this out. Applications are a separate issue (Microsoft allow download of Multilanguage extentions for Office but not the OS. Basically Windows is very poor on multi-language for the retail market e.g. bi-lingual families can only use Windows XP Pro with Multi-language extensions - a combination of software which is rarely, if ever, made available view retail channels.). Ttiotsw 08:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)