Running head: WINDOWS XP VS

Windows XP vs. Knoppix

Although many computer Operating Systems occupy the market t= oday, most break into one of two camps: the single-user, proprietary Operating Sy= stem and the multi-user, open source Operating System. Exemplifying this dynamic= are the Operating Systems examined in this paper – Windows XP and Linux. While such an examination is worthy of entire books, this paper focuses on = the difference in their kernels, and how this difference affects the philosophi= cal differences and operations of the two Operating Systems.

Knoppix, as all Linux distributions, utilizes the Linux Kern= el. The kernel is the “part of the operating system that is responsible controlling access to hardware (including memory management), for protecting processes from one another, and for security functions” (Silverman, 2005, Definitions). = The kernel for Linux evolved from the UNIX Kernel, providing the backbone for a= ll Linux distributions, which allows a common platform for software developers committed to the open source philosophy.

In addition to availability, the Linux Kernel is robust in client-server environments. T= he original UNIX Kernel “was designed for use in environments where mult= iple users must share hardware. It is a multi-tasking, multi-user operating system. It allows you to share a single computer’s hardware with other users (multi -user) and allows each user to perform multiple computing tasks simultaneously (multi-tasking)” (Office of Information Technology Publications and Training Duke University, 1996, Chapter 5). This is in direct contrast with Microsoft Windows, whose origins were in single-user environments.

As shown in Figure 1, the Linux Kernel acts as a processing = layer between the Operating System and computer hardware, allowing the Operating System to interact with physical hardware devices without actually identify= ing the hardware. This abstraction of the physical hardware, in turn, allows developers of a Linux Operating System to write programs without the need to write separate routines for the hardware from each manufacturer. Figure 2 i= s a diagram identifying with specificity where the Knoppix Operating System fits with the Linux Kernel.

Figure 1: Linux M= ajor Subsystems (Bowman, 1998, Figure = 2.1)

Figure 2: Knoppix= Schema

The Linux Kernel is monolithic. “A monolithic kernel d= efines a high-level virtual interface over the hardware, with a set of primitives = or system calls to implement operating system services such as process managem= ent, concurrency, and memory management in several modules that run in supervisor mode” (Wikipedia, 2006). Computer platforms utilizing monolithic kernels define a clear separation between the responsibilities of the Operating System and the kernel. This separation provides a tighter scripted, and some would argue more secure, kernel. In this model, Operating System and application developers interope= rate with the kernel via pre-defined system calls, and rarely modify the existing kernel. “In theory, an application could = be written that modifies the kernel configuration, but in practice, the kernel configuration is modified through simple text editors such as vi” (Silverman, 2005, Tight integration = of kernel and application).

An important aspect of separation between kernel and application falls neatly into the open source philosophy= . An open source kernel, such as Linux, puts developers on an even footing. As t= he kernel is accessible by everyone, even amateur developers have the ability = to design and distribute software over Linux platforms.

The Microsoft Windows XP Operating System takes a different approach with the micro-kernel. “A microkernel is a minimal computer operating system kernel providing only basic operating system services (sys= tem calls), while other services (commonly provided by kernels) are provided by user-space programs called servers” (Wikipedia, 2006). The theory be= hind minimizing the kernel is to maximize performance. In a tightly integrated Operating System such as Windows XP, however, the kernel actually becomes p= art of the Operating System, instead of maintaining a clear separation.

Figure 3 is a diagram of Windows XP’s Executive Servic= es, which provides services Windows applications, surrounding the microkernel, making up the Windows XP Kernel. Figure 4 is a diagram of the major subsyst= ems of a Windows XP platform, showing that the Windows XP Operating System and Windows XP Kernel are essentially the same subsystem within the diagram, and are functionally inseparable from each other.

Figure 3: Windows= XP Kernel (Microsoft, n.d., Slide 9)

Figure 4: Windows= XP Schema

This tight integration of Operating System and kernel fits w= ith Microsoft’s philosophy of proprietary software and market dominance. = The Windows XP Kernel is not open source, and access to Windows XP Services requires licensing from Microsoft. As Microsoft is in the business of selling applications and Operating Systems, their applications integrate well with = the Operating Systems they design. This tactic puts competing application and Operating System developers at an extreme disadvantage.

Whereas Microsoft focuses on the future of Microsoft, open s= ource developers appear to focus on the future of information technology as a who= le. In comparing the Linux and Windows philosophical models towards Operating Systems, and comparing their respective histories, several noticeable differences emerge in the areas of performance, security, and operations. M= ost, if not all, of these differences are in direct relation to the integration = of the respective kernels within the computer platform.

As to performance issues, questions arise as to which kernel – monolithic or microkernel – offers the better performance. Microsoft “argues that tight integration = creates higher performance applications - the open source community believes that clean, simple designs lead to higher performance” (Silverman, 2005, Cultural compariso= n of security features). While arguments on both sides contain validity, the performance factor of reliability appears to fall on the side of Linux.

Since the Windows XP Kernel is v= irtually indistinguishable from the Windows XP Operating System, a crash within the Operating System almost always results in a system reboot. A common example= of such a failure occurs when Windows XP attempts to communicate with unsuppor= ted hardware, resulting in a total system crash. The modular design of the Linux Kernel, on the other hand, allows Operating System components to fail witho= ut bringing down the entire platform.

For many of the same reasons reliability is an issue for Microsoft, so is security. Tightly integrating applications, Operating Syst= em, and kernel requires access to the kernel’s configuration. In Windows = XP, a flat-file database named the Regi= stry allows access to modifying the kernel. “T= he problem with the registry is that ordinary users and ordinary user software= has to access it, so either there must be special access controls on individual keys or else there is risk that an evil or erroneous application can modify= a system critical key” (Silve= rman, 2005, The registry). This fact explains why malicious code attacking the Registry is able to infect so many computers running Windows: access to the Registry must be consistent among Windows platforms to maintain integration= .

A singular advantage to such a tightly integrated, proprieta= ry Operating System is ease of use. While Linux distributions, such as Knoppix, continue to evolve and become more user-friendly, it is difficult to imagine they will ever reach the operability of Microsoft Windows due to the many developers within the open source community. For example, connecting to the Internet via modem is a one-click operation in Windows, whereas “Linu= x is still more ‘hands-on’ than most people can deal with. Dialing-u= p to the Internet requires you to make sure your modem driver is custom compiled into the kernel. You also have to setup a dedicated point-to-point protocol (PPP) dialer” (IT Reviews, = 2006). For non-IT professionals, the many wizards and user-friendly menus in Windo= ws XP determine the selection of Operating System.

For much of the past decade, the decision to use an open sou= rce Linux distribution or Microsoft Windows proprietary Operating System hinged= the experience, knowledge, and interest of the user. While Linux continues to improve in user-friendliness, there is no apparent evidence this trend will abate any time soon. There are plenty of solid reasons for selecting Linux = over Windows, such as security, reliability, and cost – or even philosophi= cal bent – but user-friendliness is not among them.

References

Bowman, I. (1998, January). Conceptual Architecture of the Linux Kernel. Retrieved August 1= 7, 2006, from = http://plg.uwaterloo.ca/~itbowman/C= S746G/a1/

IT Reviews (2006). Buyers Guide to Operating Systems (inc= luding Linux): Choosing the best operating systems. Retrieved August 17, 2006, from http://www.itreviews.co.uk/guide/sg= uide2.htm

Microsoft (n.d.). Introduction to the Windows XP Archite= cture. Retrieved August 17, 2006, from http://cs.senecac.on.ca/~win133/cou= rsenotes/w2karchitecture.ppt#256,1,Introduction to the Windows XP Architecture

Office of Information Te= chnology Publications and Training Duke Univer= sity (1996, August). Introduction to the Public UNIX Clusters at Duke. Retrieved Aug= ust 17, 2006, from http://www.oit.duke.edu/unix-manual= /index.html

Silverman, J. (2005, Aug= ust 14). A comparison of MS-Windows® and Linux® security. Retrieved August 17, 2006, from http://www.commercialventvac.com/~j= effs/WindowsVsLinuxSecurity.html

Wikipedia (2006). Microkernel. Retrieved August 17, = 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microk= ernel

Wikipedia (2006). Monolithic kernel. Retrieved Augus= t 17, 2006, from <= span style=3D'mso-bookmark:R389465187962963'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoli= thic_kernel

Return = to Index

Return to Home Page