Why is Linux more stable than Windows?

[jacatone]

I've often wondered why Linux is more stable than Windows. Is it the basic architecture of the OS, the code structure? I've also wondered why with all the distros of Linux, no one has come out with a version that has the ease of use of Windows. Thanks.

[bailey]

not sure what you mean
I find windows 2000, nt, and both versions of xp to be very stable as linux.

w95 and 98 did have some problems, and me is not worth talking about.

[kstatefan40]

Linux is more stable than windows in most ways - you don't want to try running games on linux lol - because of the way it is made, and who it is made for, imo.

Windows is made for the everyday home user who knows nothing about computers. It is built to provide an ease of use so that learning it is not hard. Microsoft trys to make it "idiot proof", meaning it trys to do alot of the system configuration for you based on a somewhat generic basis.

Linux is not built for the average home user. It is built for people who know what they are doing, meaning it does not take the configuration out of the system - its left there for you to do. It doesnt auto assume anything, which is why it is stable. It is less of a resource hog also, making it more compatable with older systems and uses less load.

The goal is not to be like windows, but to function where windows doesnt cut it.

[Xayd]

Because it's open source. With 340983409830489 people working on something, they'll find more bugs and fix them quicker than a piece of software that has 20 or 30 people working on it.

Simple mathematics .

[mc2phat]

And Unix has been around since dirt.

[MulderMan]

I think its alot to do with what kstatefan said about resource hogging.

Originally Posted by kstatefan40 It is less of a resource hog also, making it more compatable with older systems and uses less load.

Windows has become abit stabler over the last few years. Ive not ran xp 24/7 but im sure it would last longer than 98. But that could be in comparison to a linux server running 24/7/365, and i seriously doubt atleast a windows homeuser OS could last that long. Im not sure about a server OS.

Ive tried a transition to linux a few times but ALL my beautiful games .

[Statica]

There are a number of factors that have historically made Linux more stable than Windows; among the number of factors that used to be prevalent, the filesystem was a huge reason - the FAT32/VFAT filesystem was a rather poor substitute for trying to overcome the limitations of FAT (namely disk size, filename length etc etc). However Windows has since closed the gap with the NTFS FS, rather beautifully, of course a lot of users still are fixated on using FAT32 for Win2k or XP.
The other reason, as XayD mentioned was the enormous community that goes into fixing and patching code that is associated with Linux. With Windows it is one central organization that has to patch, fix and test - with Linux there is the potential to issue multiple patches till they get it right. Let's face it, when all your purpose from developing a s/w is usually in the form of donations or possible recognition, it is hard to live with people looking for alternatives to your shoddy work; programmers are also usually not found behind the faceless identity of a huge corporation. The code itself is transparent. If you find a bug, go through the source code and see what's going on... it is after all OpenSource.
One of the biggest issues for the Windows platform is the existence of developers who churn out half baked code; but do not require providing the source. Thus the existence of spyware, call back routines and general lack of morals. For example, a particular s/w could be coded using XYZ.dll, but there is no guarantee that XYZ.dll is going to sit well with another system, nor are there s/w manufacturers that spend enough time to have their software check for dependencies. Usually everytime you install a Linux software, you have to ensure that all the dependencies are satisfied. These dependencies (the equivalent of library files) do not come from the s/w coders, but usually from a central repository. This makes sure that with the basic set of libraries you can get the s/w working as it is supposed to.
Finally, the design of the OS itself leaves a lot to be desired in terms of security; Windows rarely if ever checks to see what is being changed.
Add to the fact that Linux is entirely customizable and modular, you have a huge advancement in stability. I don't just mean customizing the desktop wallpaper, but in the kernel itself. All Windows OS' run the same stock kernel, it stands to reason that my computer is not going to be the same as any of yours; with Linux, being able to recompile the kernel with options that just I need makes the system not only more stable but also a lot lighter.
All that for desktop/console purposes; now add on the power of Linux in a server, you've got the above advantages and the ability to handle real abuse -its not just enough to have a server running 24/7 but to have a server abused 24/7 and still come out fighting.
Again, as I said, a lot of the comparisons are usually outdated when you compare the stability of the modern Linux OS vs the modern Windows OS for a desktop user. XP/2K has come a long way. But as nixers find, Linux has a lot of advantages over Windows that go beyond mere stability (speed, security etc etc), as do Windows users find over Linux (universality in desktop applications, formats etc .. wider variety of one-stop solutions).

[Statica]

Originally Posted by Xayd Because it's open source. With 340983409830489 people working on something, they'll find more bugs and fix them quicker than a piece of software that has 20 or 30 people working on it. Simple mathematics .

And, you can identify all 340983409830489 and even contact any of the 340983409830489 people and ask them why they did what they did (or what they were drinking when they did it); as opposed to trying to get a hold of the bozo among the 20 or 30 people by emailing support@faceless_software_company.com

[Xayd]

Yeah, cause all that's gonna get you is someone who answers the email sending your question straight to file 13 .

And that's why I use it when ever possible. Why would I pay money for something that might or might work, when I can get for free an equivalent software that gives me a voice with the developers of the software itself if I have problems or suggestions for it? No brainer, paying money for software is silly considering the alternative. I guess it depends on your priorities. I value what I can see with my own eyes, performance wise, more than I value a paper warranty.

[enhanced08]

heh, after reading this i want to switch to linux even more! anyone know of a good place to start learning how to use it?

[mikeL]

This is a excellent book, to start your journey into the Linux world, also O'Reilly's Linux in nutshell is another good read

http://www.icon.co.za/~psheer/book/index.html.gz

[mb26]

'the filesystem was a huge reason - the FAT32/VFAT filesystem was a rather poor substitute for trying to overcome the limitations of FAT (namely disk size, filename length etc etc). However Windows has since closed the gap with the NTFS FS, rather beautifully, of course a lot of users still are fixated on using FAT32 for Win2k or XP.'

doesn't linux use FAT32? and could you explain whats wrong with it please? (if u dont want the extra security features of NTFS)

[OOPS!]

Hi,

Linux can read and write FAT32 with no problem. And about 30 other file systems too.

The most popular FS for linux are ext2, ext3 (journaled), Reisers (also journaled). There are others, but they escape me right now.

The thing I've never liked about FAT is the fact it loses bits and pieces of itself over useage. That's why we always have to be defragging the stupid thing constantly. And even then, that's no gaurentee.

Linux FS on ther other hand, MIGHT need a defrag after say, 50yrs of conituous useage. There is a utility called FSCK to do that, but it is seldom used. Linux FS are designed to be MUCH better at keeping track of itself. And with newer releases, say the last year or so, journald FS such as ext3 or Riesers have become the standard and can "remember" where files are supposed to be. And can restore them if bad things happen. Not a good explination I know, but I don't really understand how it works myself.

Best example I've ever seen of a journaling FS was a guy who was demo'ing linux at a computer fair. He started a huge file transfer, over a gig in size, from one directory to another. As it was running, he just reached over and yanked the power cord out of the wall. After plugging it back in, he rebooted the box. It ran some checks automagicly, and booted up just like nothing ever happened. After logging back in, it asked if he wanted to finish the transfer, he clicked yes and it just finished the job. Try that with a Windows box and see what happens. While NTFS is a huge improvement over FAT32, I still don't think it would stand that kind of abuse.

OOPS!

[OOPS!]

Oh poo,

I was going to add my .02 to why Linux is more stable than Windows. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that Linux is designed to be modular rather than monolithic like Windows.

The basic kernal is small and simple. On to that you can easily add things to it or take away things you don't want. Like sound, usb support, video drivers and such. And the programs you use are designed to use that. What that means to me is, if a program or module "crashes" just that module stops working. It doesn't affect or tear the rest of the system down with it. You can then find out and fix what went wrong, and simply restart that service and be on your merry way with no reboot needed.

Windows, on the other hand is monolithic in nature. Meaning everything is pretty much tied together. So if one thing goes bad, it ALL goes bad. Think about Microsofts' explination an why they can't remove IE without pretty much destroying their OS. Though from what I understand, their new and improved FS under Longhorn will be a least more modular and have some journeling ability. Do we need to play catch up Billy?

OOPS!

[mb26]

(sorry to side track a little..)
so why is NTFS better than FAT32, other than for security reasons?

i am thinking of running FAT32 for my XP, programs and paging files each on a partition, for speed, and then a data partition for my files in NTFS, where speed isn't so important, but the increased reliability and security would be.. is this a bad idea?
am i right in thinking that u can only have 32gb partitions of FAT32 in XP anyway?

[mb26]

(somehow it posted twice.. )

[mb26]

where are you Statica? i thought u'd have a reply about NTFS/Fat32!

[Statica]

Hey mb26:
Sorry abt the delay in getting back to you on this, this was going to be an enormous reply, so I wanted to have sometime to do it.
NTFS can be accessed by Windows NT, Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Note that there are some differences between the NTFS used by Win2K/XP and WinNT; you need to apply Service Pack 4 to Windows NT in order to access NTFS5.
The basic comparitive notes on FAT32 vs NTFS (and NTFS5 in XP and 2K) are here: http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm - as you can see NTFS has the basic feature set from FAT32 but the additional features are what truly set it apart. NTFS in essence supports all POSIX, HFS (Heirarchal File System) and HPFS (High Performance File System) features.
Clusters cannot be 64 kilobytes (KB) or larger. If clusters were 64 KB or larger, some programs (such as Setup programs) might calculate disk space incorrectly.
A volume must contain at least 65,527 clusters to use the FAT32 file system. You cannot increase the cluster size on a volume using the FAT32 file system so that it ends up with less than 65,527 clusters.
The maximum possible number of clusters on a volume using the FAT32 file system is 268,435,445. With a maximum of 32 KB per cluster with space for the file allocation table (FAT), this equates to a maximum disk size of approximately 8 terabytes (TB).
The ScanDisk tool included with Microsoft Windows 95 and Microsoft Windows 98 is a 16-bit program. Such programs have a single memory block maximum allocation size of 16 MB less 64 KB. Therefore, the Windows 95/98 ScanDisk tool cannot process volumes using the FAT32 file system that have a FAT larger than 16 MB less 64 KB in size. A FAT entry on a volume using the FAT32 file system uses 4 bytes, so ScanDisk cannot process the FAT on a volume using the FAT32 file system that defines more than 4,177,920 clusters (including the two reserved clusters). Including the FATs themselves, this works out, at the maximum of 32 KB per cluster, to a volume size of 127.53 gigabytes (GB). You cannot decrease the cluster size on a volume using the FAT32 file system so that the FAT ends up larger than 16 MB less 64 KB in size. You cannot format a volume larger than 32 GB in size using the FAT32 file system in Win2K/XP. The Win2K/XP FastFAT driver can mount and support volumes larger than 32 GB that use the FAT32 file system (subject to the other limits), but you cannot create one using the Format tool. This behaviour is by design. Microsoft recommends using NTFS for partitions greater than 32GB. If you need to format a FAT32 partition greater than 32GB, you will need to do it under Windows 98/SE/ME.
Why is clustersize important? The selection of the cluster size is a trade-off between efficient use of disk space and the number of disk accesses required to access a file. In general, using NTFS, the larger the hard disk the larger the default cluster size, since it's assumed that a system user will prefer to increase performance (fewer disk accesses) at the expense of some amount of space inefficiency. For example, for a 4 GB drive, the default cluster size is 4 KB. Clusters are indivisible. Even the smallest file takes up one cluster and a 4.1 KB file takes up two clusters (or 8 KB) on a 4 KB cluster system. NTFS has the ability to use clustersizes from 512bytes to 64KB

Use of a B-tree directory scheme to keep track of file clusters read: http://searchdatabase.techtarget.com...508442,00.html to see the advantage of the B-tree directory.

Unlike the FATs, Information about a file's clusters and other data is stored with each cluster, not just a governing table
Everything is a file in NTFS. The index to these files is the Master File Table (MFT). The MFT lists the Boot Sector file ($Boot), located at the beginning of the disk. $Boot also lists where to find the MFT. The MFT also lists itself.
Located in the centre of the disk, we find some more Metadata files. The interesting ones are: $MFTMirr and $LogFile. The MFT Mirror is an exact copy of the first 4 records of the MFT. If the MFT is damaged, then the volume could be recovered by finding the mirror. The LogFile is journal of all the events waiting to be written to disk. If the machine crashes, then the LogFile is used to return the disk to a sensible state.
Hidden at the end of the volume, is a copy of the boot sector (cluster 0). The only Metadata file that makes reference to it is $Bitmap, and that only says that the cluster is in use.
To prevent the MFT becoming fragmented, Windows maintains a buffer around it. No new files will be created in this buffer region until the other disk space is used up. The buffer size is configurable and can be 12.5%, 25%, 37.5% or 50% of the disk. Each time the rest of the disk becomes full, the buffer size is halved.

NTFS supports Unicode, and thus natively supports long file names like the NIX. Remember that FAT32 still remembers your directory names as Progra~1 and so forth

Disk quotas can be assigned, limiting the amount of disk space users can access on a partition.

NTFS also has ACL (access control lists) to determine who has control of what file and how much control; again check this: http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com...213757,00.html

The NTFS 5.0 file system can automatically encrypt and decrypt file data as it is read and written to the disk.

Fault tolerance: file system journaling.
In order to increase the reliability of the file system, and hence the operating system as a whole, NTFS includes several fault tolerance features. As the name suggests, these are capabilities that improve the ability of the file system to deal with error conditions that may arise when the system is in use. Fault tolerance is very important for business applications where a primary goal is to keep systems running smoothly with a minimum of downtime.

In no particular order, here are some of the fault tolerance and error-handling features that NTFS includes. Note that some of these capabilities are implemented through the use of the NTFS fault-tolerant disk driver, called "FTDISK":

* Transactional Operation: The way that NTFS handles transactions as atomic units, and allows transaction recovery, are key fault tolerance features Recovery is performed automatically whenever the system is started.
* Software RAID Support: NTFS partitions can be set up to use software RAID if the appropriate version of Windows NT or 2000 is used. For more information, see the full discussion of RAID.
* Dynamic Bad Cluster Remapping: When the fault-tolerant disk driver is used, the file system has the ability to automatically detect when bad clusters have been encountered during read or write operations. When a bad cluster is found, the file system will automatically relocate the data from the bad location and mark the cluster bad so it will not be used in the future. Now, the FAT file system includes the ScanDisk utility that can do this as well, but you must run it manually--with NTFS this can be done automatically. Furthermore, ScanDisk can only identify clusters that have already gone bad, at which point, data may be lost. The FTDISK driver will actually read back data as it is written (sometimes called a "verify" operation) ensuring that data is unlikely to be lost due to a bad cluster at the time of a write. (Bear in mind, however, that it is possible for an area of the disk to "go bad" between the time that the data is written and the time that it is read back.)

These features all help to make NTFS a reliable file system. Of course, they only protect against certain types of problems, and only in certain ways.

Mounted drives: attach volumes to an empty folder. Operates much like the Assign command from DOS.

Fragmentation and Defragmentation
Under ideal conditions, file system read and write transfer performance is maximized when files are contiguous on the disk. This means that all of the data in each file would be located in consecutive clusters or blocks within the volume. Contiguous storage improves performance by reducing unnecessary seek motions that are required when data is located in many different places. When files are broken into many pieces they are said to be fragmented. Fragmentation is a common occurrence in the FAT file system
The NTFS file system handles the storage of files and directories in a very different way than the FAT file system does. FAT is a very simple, and relatively "unintelligent" file system, that pays little attention to how much fragmentation will result from how it operates. In contrast, NTFS is smarter about how it manages the storage of data. For example, NTFS reserves space for the expansion of the Master File Table, reducing fragmentation of its structures. Overall, fragmentation is less of a concern in NTFS than it is under FAT.
The superior disk management capabilities of NTFS mean that fragmentation is reduced compared to FAT. Unfortunately, this led to a popular myth--that NTFS volumes have no fragmentation, and therefore never need defragmentation. Microsoft unwittingly exacerbated this problem by not providing any utility to defragment NTFS partitions in Windows NT, implying that defragmentation was unnecessary. But this is simply not the case: NTFS partitions definitely are subject to fragmentation. Many users of NTFS have never defragmented their partitions at all, leading to avoidable performance slowdowns over time.
In fact, due to their complexity, NTFS volumes suffer from a variety of different types of fragmentation. Unlike FAT, where a simple cluster allocation system is used, NTFS uses the Master File Table and a combination of resident and non-resident attributes to store files. Due to the flexible way that data is stored, and that additional data storage areas are added as needed, the result can be pieces of data spread out over the volume, particularly when small files grow into large ones. Remember that while NTFS has a much better design than FAT, at its core it does still store data in clusters. The addition and removal of data storage extents causes much of the fragmentation of files and directories. As the MFT grows, it itself can become fragmented, reducing performance further.
For Windows NT, there was the need to use a third-party program, one of the most popular being the Diskeeper program by Executive Software. In its wisdom, Microsoft decided to license the Diskeeper defragmenter technology and include it in Windows 2000, so the operating system now includes a built-in defragmenter, though it is likely either less capable or slower than the full Diskeeper program sold by Executive Software.

Hard links: create an NTFS-based link to a given file.

Sparse files: assign and reserve hard disk space to specific files.

File Streams: multiple data streams are supported and accessible with NTFS.

---

As you can deduce a lot of the information is taken from a number of sources out there - this is merely a quick synopsis of a variety of links (some of which have been provided). I'll end with pointing you to this: http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/ntfs/index.htm a rather verbose account of NTFS if you get the time.

Cheers

[Floppyman]

Nice post...bookmarked.