Link to home
Start Free TrialLog in
Avatar of mikeliew
mikeliew

asked on

what is the diffrent about linux and windows 2000?

please tell me that what is teh different about using linux or windows 2000 be my personal computer os system? and what is the diffirent about their network security, efficiency, and function? thank u  
Avatar of walterk
walterk

Hi Mike,

I'll give it a try, there is no single answer to this question, but I use both operating systems.

There is a big difference between Windows2000 and Linux.

1st difference is the price. You can get linux and most of its applications for free from the net. Windows2000 as u know is not free.

2. Most of the programs run on Windows2000 as there are a lot of programs available for it. And you can get support from Microsoft if you have any problems.

If you are experimental and don't mind compiling your own programs and do a lot of self-help, linux might be the operating system for you, depending on which applications you want to run.
Installing a program can be quite lengthy on Linux as you may have to compile and install various programs in order to make it work. Most programs which run on Windowsare available

I am running Linux for most of my servers (with various services) but am running Windows2000 as the workstation, for compatibility issues with my fellow colleagues.

I must however admit that both platforms are equally stable. Windows2000 has come very far in stability in comparison with Windows98.

I hope this answers your questions.
ok, let's cove efficiency: Linux will take a lot better advantage of your hardware then win2k. Also it offers a lot greater stability than most microsoft product: it has to do with how the resources are being allocated.(mind you I am not putting down win2k: I was running the beta since November and then upgraded to the full version in February, and I crashed only once due to an error on my part).  Security wise, I think that they are very close to each other right now.  

The biggest thing that you have to keep in mind is hardware support.  Before you even make a decision as to which one you want to run, take a look at the webpage of the company that puts out the one you want to go with (I would recommend www.redhat.com since they have one of the better linux distributions out there on the market) and check out their hardware compatibility lists.  Often new hardware will not have nowhere near as much support as the old one.

Configuring linux also is not as easy.  If one got lazy and used to the microsoft interface, even though x-windows offers similar one, there is enough differences that one has to pick a book fairly often.

Last but not least: if you like playing all the new games, forget it.  There are very few games available for linux.  

Usage:
I have a linux server setup to run as my router and firewall.  I also have some drives setup on it to share between other machines.
I also have a linux workstation for experimenting and learning purposes and on top of that I also have a win2k workstation, a win98 machine.  There different things that you can use every single one of them for and often their usage overlaps.

Hope this helps.

Kejtar
Avatar of mikeliew

ASKER

thank a lot , walterk, if i want to use both, how do i install it ?? can i know that why don't u use linux be workstation ans use win2000 be the server? is it any problems on that ??
my friend, kejtar, i think that u almost answer what i wanted, but can i know more detail about it, why u say linux offers a lot better advantage of my hardware then win2k and also it offers a lot greater stability than most microsoft product? can i know that why? thank u . besides that, u say the security is almost the same, but still have the different, if u know the different ..please tell me ... ok anyway, thank a lot ...
my friend, kejtar, i think that u almost answer what i wanted, but can i know more detail about it, why u say linux offers a lot better advantage of my hardware then win2k and also it offers a lot greater stability than most microsoft product? can i know that why? thank u . besides that, u say the security is almost the same, but still have the different, if u know the different ..please tell me ... ok anyway, thank a lot ...
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Avatar of walterk
walterk

Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
ok.... to get started, efficiency wise linux is a lot better because of lower overhead: meaning there aren't as many resources required to get it running as windows.  
Also linux is more efficient about running background tasks then windows machines.  
Example: I have a proxy server + firewall setup on an "el cheapo": meaning a p100 with 16MB of RAM, and 1GB HD.  When I tried installing win nt4 on the same machine I was always running out of memory because of the overhead (basic Windows processes take a lot of memory).  

Stability wise: linux is a lot better about running all processes independent from each other, so if one process crashes the stability of the rest is unaffected.  Stability also is directly connected to efficiency: since Linux is better on the memory usage and CPU time, the computer will run smoother....

Both OS on the same machine:
It can be achieved one of couple different ways:
1.  If you have, or are willing to invest into a removable hard drive: get two of them, and install win2k on one, and linux on the other.  
2.  If you don't want the hassle of removable hard drives, best option is still to setup two drives in your machine, and get a switch that installs in open 5 1/4 drive bay and switches between hard drives.
3.  Next option is with either two drives or one partitioned into at least 3 partitions:  use a Boot Magic or System Commander to switch between OS and partitions upon boot time......


Hope this helps... post with questions.
Also if you can post a little bit more details as to the application that you will use the computers for (if you can).  This would allow for more specific answers.

Kejtar
oh, security wise with the new win2k you can take your security to the file level (just like with linux) which allows you to set permission down to the single file (with win nt4 I believe the lowest level you could have taken it to was to the directory level, and that also had some limitations on it...)

Kejtar
One more security level in Win2k, which is not yet available on Linux, with regards to file level is actually being able to compress and encrypt the files/filesystem on the fly with a key. If you yourself lose the key, you can't even get to the data yourself anymore.
This is the ultimate security, and pretty cpu intensive as well... Question is.. do you need it :)