Comparative Analysis Between Windows And Linux
In the field of operating system, it is long as been identified as a cornerstone of computer science that serves as the fundamental software layer and enables hardware functionalities to facilitate user interactions. Among the plethora of operating systems, there has been a certain emergence of windows and Linux that stands out to be two prominent players in the context of commanding substantial shares and computing landscape (Zhang et al., 2022). This report aims to provide a detailed analysis of the critical component of process management, scheduling, file management and security within the context of windows and Linux, providing a comprehensive, comparative analysis (Yaswinski et al., 2019). These components have been chosen based on their pivotal roles in determining efficiency, reliability and security of an operating system.
Process management is the orchestration of the system that takes resources and implements at the heart of computer functionalities. On the other hand, scheduling can be defined or presented as an essential aspect that dictates how the system allocates resources to the processes and directly impacts the overall performance of the computing system (Ujjan et al., 2020). Apart from this, Effective file management ensures the seamless functions of the organisation, while the retrieval of data is another important step that organisations or systems could gain in terms of user experience (Studies, 2022). Most importantly security contains a huge concern in contemporary computing system and safeguarding against the unauthorised access and data breaches are carried out in this function.
Therefore, in the digital landscape, this report will continue to evolve with proper information and a comprehensive and comparative analysis of the intricacies of such operating systems While presenting the strength and weaknesses of the characterizations between windows and Linux.
In relation to discuss the process management based on the operating systems, it is important to understand that operating process management is the foundational concept of operating system and it involves the orchestration creation and termination of different processes within the computing environment synchronising different aspects. A process in this context of operating system represents an independent execution unit which addresses different aspects of process management involving efficient utilisation of the system resources, overall performance optimization and so on (Reshmi, 2021). The importance of robust process management is identified in terms of its capacity to enhance the system efficiency along with responsiveness and resource utilisation. On the other hand, through the effective process management, an operating system can ensure concurrent execution of the multiple tasks, manifesting seamless and responsive user experience and so on (Nwankwo and Samson Olayinka, 2019). Moreover, it carries out a significant role in the resource allocation, allowing the system to allocate processor time input, output resources and memory along with judicious functions which helps in preventing the bottlenecks and enhancing overall system performance throughout the process.
In relation to discuss the process management in the context of Windows, Jang and Ric Messier, (2016) stated that it is a comprehensive approach to the process management, and it employs a primitive multitasking model, which helps the computing system to seamlessly execute multiple process at a time. On the other hand, Hamdani et al., (2021), also highlighted how the window task manager serves as a central hub for controlling and managing the processes while offering the users a clear insight regarding the resource consumptions and facility prioritizations. Strength in windows process management could be identified in terms of user-friendly interface and efficient utilisation of the system resources (Feng and McDonald, 2023). Nonetheless, the challenges are disadvantages can be identified in the form of rising potential for resource contention specifically in the course of resource intensive applications.
In case of Linux, it is observed that contrasting Windows, Linux manifested a similar primitive multitasking paradigm that helps in distinguishing itself from the terms of process management, implementation. Linux leverages a hierarchical process structure, which allows the creation of new processes and manage their interdependencies in an efficient manner. On the other hand, Dinneen and Julien, (2019) highlights the robust application of Linux in the context of process management emphasises its scalability and adaptability to the range of diverse computing environments. Apart from this, Adekotujo et al., (2020) manifests a clear idea about the open-source nature of Linux that facilitates user customization, empowering administrator, to tailor the process management strategies during specific workloads. Hence, the concern may be identified in the Linux process isolation under heavy loads, but it sometimes could enhance the scalability without compromising the system stability.
Therefore, both the windows and Linux demonstrated sophisticated aspects of process management strategies. Yet nuanced in their implementation reflect diverse approaches with in terms of achieving optimal system performance (Duncan and Schreuders, 2018). The above a comparative discussion between the windows and Linux in the context of process management has clearly manifested the evolution and refinement of these operating systems in relation to process resources and data, while different methodologies are implemented in order to meet the demands of modern computing system.
In discussing the scheduling system, it is important to highlight that scheduling involves strategic allocation of systems resource to process, determine and execute different tasks under computing system. The critical function of scheduling system directly influences the efficiency response time and overall throughput of the system (Ferrag et al., 2021). Therefore, the scheduling optimization resources utilised by managing processor time minimising ideal time and ensuring fair allocation among different computing processes. The scheduling system serve as a pivotal mechanism for achieving a balance between the responsiveness and resource conservation of the system. While it caters to diverse demand imposed by varying workloads.
In order to identify an effective scheduling mechanism, it is important to address the inherent challenges of multi programming environment, where numerous processes contend for limited resources (Hou et al., 2022). On the other hand, by applying the intelligent algorithms operating system can allocate CPU time judiciously that would eventually prevent resource starvation and promote fair distribution of computing resources.
In the context of windows, it could be stated that the operating system highlights the sophisticated scheduling mechanism while windows utilise, priority based primitive scheduling algorithm to allocate the processes on priority label and also addresses the need of CPU time based on these priorities (Khare and Agrawal, 2019). On the other hand, their windows scheduler advocates the combination of priority classes, thread priority levels and time slicing techniques to Ensure that the system is responsive and fairly operating within the processes. One of the major strengths of windows scheduling indicates towards adaptability of verified and diverse workloads and responsiveness due to the interactive tasks (Pavel Yosifovich et al., 2017). Whereas the challenges or concerns related to the scheduling system in windows have been identified in terms of potential priority inversion issues, in which low priority threads behold the resources that are needed for the high priority threads.
In case of Linux, the scheduling system can be discussed in terms of dynamic priority-based scheduling approach, which helps in utilising the completely fierce scheduler in the latest versions. The completely fair scheduler provides the CPU a time based on the notion of fairness, aiming to provide each process with equal share of the processor (Pavel Yosifovich et al., 2017). Linux scheduler distinguishes itself from the other aspects through emphasising on the fairness and responsiveness. This eventually helps in adjusting the dynamics based on the priorities of processes, behaviour, optimising resource allocation in response to the varying workloads. The competitive studies between the windows and Linux scheduling have manifested the Linux efficiency in handling diverse workload in comparison to windows in particular server environments (Reshmi, 2021). Despite of this, there are certain concerns that needs to be addressed and has manifested the complexity of CFS algorithm and its potential impact over the system overhead.
Therefore, both windows and Linux implementation in the advanced scheduling mechanism have manifested and showcased the distinct approaches to balance system efficiency and responsiveness (Studies, 2022). Moreover, the above comparative discussion has advocated the ongoing evaluation of Scheduling strategies and manifested how specific challenges resolution could address the optimization of the operating system performance in future.
File management is another important operating system within the different computing environment, which encompasses systematic organisation of storage retrieval and manipulation of data in files. It is considered to be a fundamental aspect that helps in enhancing the efficient handling information, offering users and applications for a structured means to access and modify data (Tiwari and Siddique, 2021). The importance of effective file management depends on its role as a bridge between the logical representation of data and the physical storage medium. Therefore, a well-designed file management system helps in enhancing the data integrity, accessibility and overall system usability.
While discussing the file management in the context of windows as an operating system, it is important to focus on the intricacies of file management system and highlight user centric design with the focus on the graphical user interface (GUIs) (Wankhede et al., 2020). Windows file explorer serve as a primary tool for navigating and managing files. While it also offers a visually intuitive interface to the users. On the other hand, the hierarchical file system in this regard, typically utilises the new technology file system that supports the features, such as permissions, compression and encryption (Yaswinski et al., 2019). One of the major trends of file management in Windows operating system is that it is user friendly and carries extensive compatibility with various file formats, while also supports multimedia files with robustness. Similarly, it has certain challenges concern that can be identified in terms of NTFS susceptibility to fragmentation and limitation in handling the symbolic links.
In case of Linux, the file management system is characterised by the command line interface, which is a path of hierarchical file system that typically being used by the extended file system or other file system like Btrfs (Yevseiev et al., 2021). File management system under Linux is deeply rooted in the Unix philosophy which emphasises on the simplicity and modularity of an operating system. On the other hand, the cli represents the bash shell, which allows a powerful and scriptable file manipulation in Linux. Moreover, the file management system in Linux supports features like symbolic links, file permissions and encodes, which contributes to the flexible and customizable environment (Zhang et al., 2022). Apart from this, in comparison with Windows, Linux has manifested far more efficiency in handling large scale of server configurations along with data integrity. However, the challenges in this regard can be identified in terms of steeper learning curve for the users with less familiarity of command line interactions.
Therefore, the above comparative analysis has advocated the nuanced approaches that window and Linux file management manifests, reflecting the divergence in their user interfaces and design philosophies.
Security in operating system is one of the most crucial aspects that serves in the frontline of the defensive aspects of an operating system. The security in the win operating system serves as the defensive aspect that helps prevent the unauthorised access data breaches and system vulnerabilities at the same time (Wankhede et al., 2020). On the other hand, it Play the crucial role in a safeguarding the data of the users, ensuring a confidentiality, integrity and availability of information of the user within the computing environment. Therefore, the operating system security extends beyond user level and protection to involve network security, authentication mechanism and Prevention of malicious code execution (Ujjan et al., 2020). The importance of a strong security measure cannot be overstated, as the directly impact the user trust system reliability and overall resilience of the computer system that face cyber threats.
In the context of Windows, the security measures need to be discussed, considering the fact that it provides a comprehensive insight into the security features and mechanism of an inherent platform. On the other hand, the Windows Security Centre in conjunction of The Windows Defender Antivirus constitute a significantly strong defence system against malware and other security threats (Ferrag et al., 2021). However, Additional security layers, including user account control, BitLocker encryption for data protection and Windows Firewall for network security are also involved in the due course. Windows advantages in terms of security is that it beholds a large user base facilitating rapid detection and my mitigation of emerging threats through its security updates (Hou et al., 2022). Nonetheless, it has some challenges that includes Windows Registry and occasional delays in patch development and deployment that has been subjected to the scholarly discourses.
While discussing about the security mechanisms in the context of Linux, it is important to highlight that it is embedded within the operating system and often attributes to the open-source nature and collaborative efforts of the community (Duncan and Schreuders, 2018). Linux leverages a robot permission model, which helps users to strictly define, reduce the risk of unauthorised access (Adekotujo et al., 2020). Moreover, the inclusion of the mandatory access control exemplified by SELinux (Security-Enhanced Linux) or AppArmor, Strengthened the operating system in Linux to fight against the unauthorised system modification and data breaches. Therefore, the separation of users and administrator roles in the principle of least privileged contribute to the Linux’s inherent security posture.
Therefore, the comparative analysis of security in the context of both windows and Linux have advocated the critical role played by the aspects. And it also highlights the contribution of security measures in preserving users, integrity and data sustainability and reliability.
Depending on the above discussion over the two operating system, that is windows and Linux. The 4 components have been thoroughly discussed. And in this part of the report, the comparative analysis will be presented. From the cross-component analysis of these four operating components, it is realized that all these have adopted distinct approaches to implement the process management scheduling, file management and security between windows and Linux (Dinneen and Julien, 2019). On the other hand, Windows manifested a strict user centric design that emphasizes on the graphical interface for the enhanced experience for users. In areas such as process management, file management and security. On the contrary, Linux has advocated towards a more modular and command line in centric design philosophy, which offers flexibility and customization. Scheduling mechanism referred to have both primitive and different algorithm in case of Windows, which employs priority-based approach while Linux has highlighted its use with fairness through the completely fair scheduler (Duncan and Schreuders, 2018). Moreover, the file management in windows have been identified with favoring graphical interfaces and NTFS that promotes user friendly navigation in comparison to Linux, which involves a command line interface and ext4 that represents the hierarchical file system (Duncan and Schreuders, 2018). In terms of security, both the systems as employed robust measures as window focuses on user friendly features like window defender and Linux leverage on open-source nature for community driven security measures.
In conclusion, the comparative analysis of windows and Linux operating system across different components, like process management, file management, scheduling and security measures, have revealed a dichotomy of design in philosophies and implementation of strategies. Windows have prioritized user friendly interfaces compatibility and proactive approaches to security catering divorce of desktop users. On the other hand, Linux emphasizes over modularity customization and robust security measures, particularly beneficial to the server environment. Therefore, the report has concentrated on conducting a comparative analysis of these four components and their operating features in terms of windows and Linux. Clear set of advantages and disadvantages are mentioned with each operating components, which has clearly defined the specific requirement and acknowledge dynamic nature of the operating system landscape.
Adekotujo, A., Odumabo, A., Adedokun, A. and Aiyeniko, O. (2020). A Comparative Study of Operating Systems: Case of Windows, UNIX, Linux, Mac, Android and iOS. International Journal of Computer Applications, 176(39), pp.16–23. doi:https://doi.org/10.5120/ijca2020920494.
Dinneen, J.D. and Julien, C. (2019). The ubiquitous digital file: A review of file management research. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24222.
Duncan, R. and Schreuders, Z.C. (2018). Security implications of running windows software on a Linux system using Wine: a malware analysis study. Journal of Computer Virology and Hacking Techniques, 15(1), pp.39–60. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11416-018-0319-9.
Feng, K. and McDonald, D.W. (2023). Addressing UX Practitioners’ Challenges in Designing ML Applications: an Interactive Machine Learning Approach. arXiv (Cornell University). doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/3581641.3584064.
Ferrag, M.A., Friha, O., Maglaras, L., Janicke, H. and Shu, L. (2021). Federated Deep Learning for Cyber Security in the Internet of Things: Concepts, Applications, and Experimental Analysis. IEEE Access, pp.1–1. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2021.3118642.
Hamdani, S.W.A., Abbas, H., Janjua, A.R., Shahid, W.B., Amjad, M.F., Malik, J., Murtaza, M.H., Atiquzzaman, M. and Khan, A.W. (2021). Cybersecurity Standards in the Context of Operating System. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(3), pp.1–36. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/3442480.
Hou, Y., Fu, Y., Gao, K., Zhang, H. and Sadollah, A. (2022). Modelling and optimization of integrated distributed flow shop scheduling and distribution problems with time windows. Expert Systems with Applications, 187, p.115827. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115827.
Jang, M.H. and Ric Messier (2016). Security strategies in Linux platforms and applications. Burlington, Ma: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Khare, A. and Agrawal, S. (2019). Scheduling hybrid flowshop with sequence-dependent setup times and due windows to minimize total weighted earliness and tardiness. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 135, pp.780–792. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.06.057.
Nwankwo, W. and Akinola Samson Olayinka (2019). Implementing A Risk Management And X-Ray Cargo Scanning Document Management Prototype. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 8(10), pp.93–105.
Pavel Yosifovich, Russinovich, M.E., Solomon, D.A. and Ionescu, A. (2017). Windows internals. Part 1, System architecture, processes, threads, memory management, and more. Washington: Microsoft.
Reshmi, T.R. (2021). Information security breaches due to ransomware attacks - a systematic literature review. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, [online] 1(2), p.100013. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2021.100013.
Sedaghat, M., Pontus Sköldström, Turull, D., Vinay Yadhav, Joacim Halén, Ganesan, M., Mehta, A. and John, W. (2020). Nefele: Process Orchestration for the Cloud. arXiv (Cornell University). doi:https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2006.07163.
Studies, J. of C.S. and T. (2022). Linux vs. Windows: A Comparison of Two Widely Used Platforms | Journal of Computer Science and Technology Studies. www.al-kindipublisher.com. [online] Available at: https://www.al-kindipublisher.com/index.php/jcsts/article/view/2763.
Tiwari, R. and Siddique, Mr.S. (2021). ANALYTICAL SURVEY OF WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEM AND COMPARISON OF WINDOWS, LINUX AND ANDROID OPERATING SYSTEM. International Journal of Engineering Applied Sciences and Technology, 6(2). doi:https://doi.org/10.33564/ijeast.2021.v06i02.028.
Ujjan, R.M.A., Pervez, Z., Dahal, K., Bashir, A.K., Mumtaz, R. and González, J. (2020). Towards sFlow and adaptive polling sampling for deep learning based DDoS detection in SDN. Future Generation Computer Systems, 111, pp.763–779. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.10.015.
Wankhede, P., Talati, M. and Chinchamalatpure, R. (2020). COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CLOUD PLATFORMS -MICROSOFT AZURE, GOOGLE CLOUD PLATFORM AND AMAZON EC2. Journal of Research in Engineering and Applied Sciences, 05(02), pp.60–64. doi:https://doi.org/10.46565/jreas.2020.v05i02.004.
Yaswinski, M.R., Chowdhury, M.M. and Jochen, M. (2019). Linux Security: A Survey. [online] IEEE Xplore. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/EIT.2019.8834112.
Yevseiev, S.P., Pogasiy, S., Goloskokova, A., Shmatko, O. and Melnik, M. (2021). Cybersecurity: security of Linux operating system. [online] repository.kpi.kharkov.ua. Novyi Svit – 2000. Available at: https://repository.kpi.kharkov.ua/items/b8b39e6b-bec7-4296-b08a-1f50fe28b86c [Accessed 21 Dec. 2023].
Zhang, S., Zhou, Z., Luo, R., Zhao, R., Xiao, Y. and Xu, Y. (2022). A low-carbon, fixed-tour scheduling problem with time windows in a time-dependent traffic environment. International Journal of Production Research, pp.1–20. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2022.2153940.
