What are the differences between Linux and UNIX?

Command-line-wise, almost none, although this has been changing (for better or worse). Linux has a much larger market appeal and following than any commercial UNIX.? GUI-wise there are also no major differences--Linux, as most other UNICES, uses an X-Windowing system.

The major differences:
- Linux is free, while many UNICES (this is supposed to be plural of UNIX), cost A LOT.? Same about applications--many good applications are available on Linux free.? Even the same commercial application (if you wanted to buy one) typically costs much more for a commercial UNIX than for Linux.
- Linux runs on many hardware platforms, the commodity Intel-x86/IBM-spec personal computers being the most prominent. A typical UNIX is proprietary-hardware-bonded (and this hardware tends to be much more expensive than normal PC).
- With Linux, you are in charge of your computer, whereas on most UNICES you are typically confined to be an "l-user" (some administrators pronounce it "loser").
- Linux feels very much like DOS/Win in the 80s/early 90s, but is much sturdier and richer, while a typical UNIX account feels like a mainframe from the 60s/70s.
-? Some UNICES may be more mature in certain areas (for example, security, some engineering applications, better support of cutting-edge hardware). Linux is more for an average Joe who wants to run his own small server or engineering workstation.

What are the differences between Linux and MS Windows?

Mouse-click-wise, almost none, once Linux is properly installed.? Linux installation can be a challenge though, whereas MS Windows comes pre-installed with your computer.

The major differences:
- Linux is free, while MS Windows costs money. Same for applications.
- With Linux, you are unlikely to violate any licence agreement, all the software is happily yours. With MS Windows you likely already violate all kinds of licenses and you could be pronounced a computer pirate if only a smart lawyer was after you (don't worry, most likely none is after you).
- MS Windows tries to be the "lowest-common-denominator" operating system? (for better or worse), whereas Linux is built for more sophisticated, feature hungry computer users (for better or worse).
- Windows is based on DOS, Linux is based on UNIX. Windows Graphical User Interface (GUI) is based on Microsoft-own specifications. Linux GUI is based on industry-standard X-Windows.
- Linux beats Windows hands down on network features, and as a development platform. MS Windows desktop has a more polished appearance.
- Linux is more feature-rich than you could imagine. Heard on the Internet: "Two big products came from the University of California: UNIX and LSD. And I don't think it's a coincidence."

I don't believe in free software, etc.

And do you believe in the Internet? The Internet and Linux share underlying ideas and have common roots. Do you remember the disbelief about the Internet a few years ago, the endless, seemingly unbeatable arguments that free Internet cannot exist? "Who pays for that, anyway?"

The reality is simple.? Cooperation and good will can benefit many at the same time: your gain is not my loss. Internet works fine and is expanding at a rapid pace. So does Linux.

Here is an opinion of IBM executive: "The reason we are so excited about Linux is we believe Linux can do for applications what the Internet did for networks" (http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-08-17-001-04-PS-EL).

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"

Brett Bazant wrote in LinuxToday (http://linuxtoday.com/cgi-bin/showtb.pl?tbsn=12450&sn=5418):

The economic paradigm which makes this true depends upon scarcity of resources. Software resources are only scarce because we all keep software proprietary and secret. But not Linux! When I give you my software, it may create an opportunity cost for me, but I get to keep it even after I've given it to you. It is a free lunch only rivalled in history by the loaves and the fishes.

I need high security. With commercial software, I can sue them if things go wrong.

Don't count on suing. Things go wrong on many MS Windows NT machines every day, and there are no damages awarded by courts.? Read your MS Windows license agreement to find out that there is no guarantee whatsoever that ANYTHING will work. Trying to sue would be a waste of your money.

Linux? also provides no guarantees, although it is far more secure than any version of MS Windows.? If you are really security-sensitive , you can use high-security tools built by companies that rely on the availability of the source code to design and test their security features (e.g., Kryptokom in Germany provides high security firewalls).? The "security in obscurity" implemented in MS Windows has repeatedly been demonstrated to be a naive approach.

Here is a quote from David Kastrup, Research Engineer, Bochum, Germany (after the "Internet Week", http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?INW19990329S0050):

"Risk aversion is what dictates you use Linux and other open products, rather than NT. The risks with NT are entirely out of your control, and there is nobody you could sue if anything goes wrong. Why people still believe the myth that Windows in any form offers any bit of accountability "more" than Linux remains a complete riddle to me."

I need standards. Big software corporations (Microsoft)? provide standards.

Perhaps that's what people would expect from large corporations, but the reality is rather different.? Once, big companies loved inventing nuts that could be undone only by their own service shops. Did these nuts become standard? Hardly. They didn't because there was no public benefit involved, and they couldn't because they were patented. Luckily, now we have open and free standards for nuts.

An example from the computer field.? The "standard" MS Word file format has changed numerous times over the recent years. This keeps happening probably for a good business reason:? as soon as other companies "reverse-engineer" the current Word format,? Microsoft changes it. There are even sub-formats (a MS "fast-save" anybody?). It is also completely closed--Microsoft does not publish the specifications. How can the user benefit from this in a longer term?

Xavier Basora? (http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/XavierBasora/XavierBasora47.html):
"... Microsoft's standards are both proprietary and arbitrary- the stealth incompatibility of Office 97 file formats with older versions of Office or the subversion of Open standards like XML with proprietary extensions that require Internet Explorer 5, MS Active server and so on, are sober reminders of what the company does to a market."

Wesley Parish (http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/WesleyParis/WesleyParish10.html):
"... Microsoft's monopoly doesn't guarantee that your current MS Office will work with any previous or future MS Office. This is in spite of any number of Microsoft apologists arguing that the benefit of Microsoft's monopoly has been a standard for productivity applications."

To add to the confusion,? companies typically do not "standardize" on file formats but on applications that are supposed to produce them. It is like standardizing on a manufacturer of nuts instead of on nuts. How is this supposed to work if the file manufacturer keeps changing the specification to drive their sales?

Ted Clark (http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-09-29-004-06-OP-MR-0010):
"We need standardized, open file formats so that users can exchange documents between platforms. The actual word processing software used to generate these documents shouldn't even be an issue."

There are a few text/document oriented file formats that are quite definitely more standard than MS Word file format:? ASCII, XML, HTML, SGML, LaTeX, TEX, PostScript, pdf, dvi ...? and all of them have excellent support under Linux. The MS Word file format can be also read/written very well under Linux by Word Perfect, Star Office, Applixware, etc. to cover your today's needs. Advanced, "universal", open-source document formats (XML-based) are rapidly developing so watch us :)) The story is similar with other proprietary computing "standards" (*.giff vs. *.png anyone?).

Linux, by its very nature, is based on true, published and free standards because "open source" makes the full specifications available to everybody (competitors or not). I think the urge for open standards is the very driving force behind Linux. Some people feel that they cannot affort to trust their algorithms and data to a commercial entity, let alone one that repeatedly showed to be totally untrustworthy.

Have a look at a draft of this Argentinian law for a taste of the future. It sounds like the Argentinian were the first to decide that their public records cannot be held hostage by a commercial entity: (source: http://slashdot.org/articles/01/04/28/010216.shtml): "Artice 6: From the date established by the Executive Power on, Public National Organizations mentioned in article 1 of this law, will not be allowed to use programs that store data in non-public format, or with licenses which ..." [are not free].

There is a general perception in the Linux community that there is a very serious problem with standards, and this problem is completely ignored and even aggravated by people who are paid to take care of it.

This includes standards for "static" data, as well as knowledge embedded in computer codes. If you write a computer program that is supposed to store any kind of know-how, you may be well-advised to: (1) select a completely open-standard base, and? (2) keep it simple. This way, you are guranteed to protect what is yours. These days, it will almost certainly include some pieces which are encased in a "typical" Linux distribution (some have been ported to other platforms as well). For examples, have a look at Perl, php, python, and Linux C libraries.