FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


UNIX and LINUX





nepheus
What are the differences between them? I know UNIX by FreeBSD (It's famous, right?), and LINUX i know many systems.
Q5U8
Linux is a GNU OS project based in a portable, multiuser and multitasking OS developed by AT&T.

Essentialy, the look and feel is the same. The main difference is that Linux has a great community working to make it better in order to displace other commercial products, like Microsoft Windows.
Ranfaroth
You're a bit wrong...

First, UNIX is a family of OS (which include HPX, AIX, GNU/Linux, Solaris, *BSD....)

Second, Linux is a kernel, and the OS which use them is GNU/Linux.

Search wikipedia for more details...
[FuN]goku
When i think of the comparison between the two, heres what i come up with

UNIX - Mostly text based. , and is used alot more for server stuff.
Linux - Usually has a GUI, and is used for server stuff as well...

Thats how ive always thought about the two.. though im probly wrong lol...
{name here}
Ranfaroth wrote:
You're a bit wrong...

First, UNIX is a family of OS (which include HPX, AIX, GNU/Linux, Solaris, *BSD....)

Second, Linux is a kernel, and the OS which use them is GNU/Linux.

Search wikipedia for more details...

1. UNIX is a brand name for an operating system family by AT&T owned currently by Novell with certain characteristics. Those that can't afford the license or don't want to pay for one are just Unix-like.

2. This is a matter of opinion, but I'm not one for that whole GNU/Linux crap. Linux is good enough. The kernel and the drivers are basically the operating system - nothing the GNU has really constitutes as being a real operating system - just a collection of software. This is an argument for another day, perhaps.

Quote:
UNIX - Mostly text based. , and is used alot more for server stuff.
Linux - Usually has a GUI, and is used for server stuff as well...

VAX systems running UNIX do have GUIs sometimes should someone install it. Linux is just more oriented toward end-users who are hackers (not crackers, but hackers in general. Usually they'd use a light GUI with command lines or preferrably virtual terminals for many) rather than enterprise oriented (where all that's practically needed is a mail server), so terminals aren't the prime on many environements. For example, Solaris.
mehulved
[quote="[FuN]goku"]
When i think of the comparison between the two, heres what i come up with

UNIX - Mostly text based. , and is used alot more for server stuff.
Linux - Usually has a GUI, and is used for server stuff as well...

Thats how ive always thought about the two.. though im probly wrong lol...
/quote]
X and many others DE/WM's are available on other *nix systems, too. So, GUI isn't just restricted to Linux.
I have seen KDE on FreeBSD and GNOME on solaris. There should be others too but I haven't seen them myself.
Arno v. Lumig
[quote="mehulved"]
[FuN]goku wrote:

When i think of the comparison between the two, heres what i come up with

UNIX - Mostly text based. , and is used alot more for server stuff.
Linux - Usually has a GUI, and is used for server stuff as well...

Thats how ive always thought about the two.. though im probly wrong lol...
/quote]
X and many others DE/WM's are available on other *nix systems, too. So, GUI isn't just restricted to Linux.
I have seen KDE on FreeBSD and GNOME on solaris. There should be others too but I haven't seen them myself.


Most of the DEs and WMs have been ported to FreeBSD, and now that we also have X.Org 7.2 we can also use Beryl Smile (we're a few months behind on Xorg, because it might break some compatibility which you don't want on servers)
infobankr
In general terms, Linux and UNIX are very similar, but while linux is fairly specific in what is refers to, UNIX can mean a lot more things. Like someone in this thread said before, UNIX is a trademark, but so is linux. And its canonically named "GNU/Linux", and the GNU supposedly stands for "GNU's not unix", like many other self-referential acronyms in the uber-geeky world (like PINE - pine is not elm, and phing - phing is not gnumake).

In my mind, that means GNU/Linux is like unix, but its not the same thing. Despite all their similarities, linux and unix are very different.

For example, a popular form of unix is FreeBSD, and if you are familiar with both a linux distro like debian and and a unix like freebsd, the two are clearly different.

Personally, I would love to see more collaboration between the BSDs and linux, but from time to time I'm glad that they are separate entities.

On the flip side, despite all their differences, linux and unix operating systems can share a lot of programs. In fact, as others in this thread have mentioned, the X windowing system can be used on both unix and linux, as well as a staggering amount of other software packages.

Linux and UNIX are both "POSIX-compliant", as well as some other similar systems like Solaris, and I even believe minix. This umbrella of consistency in the management of files and other system components allows the possibility of sharing components and software amongst the different operating systems.

Its a good thing you asked - and it really is a good question. I encourage you to learn more about both linux and UNIX. I believe you will benefit from what you find. Hope my post helps you in your journey! Smile
Ranfaroth
{name here} wrote:
1. UNIX is a brand name for an operating system family by AT&T owned currently by Novell with certain characteristics. Those that can't afford the license or don't want to pay for one are just Unix-like.
Yes, that's the family I was talking about. It's also referred as Un*x
Quote:
2. This is a matter of opinion, but I'm not one for that whole GNU/Linux crap. Linux is good enough. The kernel and the drivers are basically the operating system - nothing the GNU has really constitutes as being a real operating system - just a collection of software. This is an argument for another day, perhaps.
You're completely wrong.
The OS can't be reduced to the kernel.
Just one example : to be POSIX compliant, an OS has to have a shell compatible with ksh.
The shell used in GNU/Linux for this purpose is the Bourne shell, which of course is not part of Linux.
Same thing for the GNU tools like awk, echo, ed...

Linux Torwald said "Sadly, a kernel by itself gets you nowhere. To get a working system you need a shell, compilers, a library etc. These are separate parts and may be under a stricter (or even looser) copyright. Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft. These tools aren't in the distribution ask me (or GNU) for more info."

Did you heard about GNU/Hurd, another OS with the same GNU tools, and another kernel (the Hurd) ?
Studio Madcrow
Unix is obsolete. Nobody uses it, mainlt because a whole bunch of much better UNIX-like OSes have become available for free. Some, like Linux, were created from scratch, while others, like *BSD and Solaris used to have bits of Unix living in them but have had them removed and replaced with better bits of code.
{name here}
Ranfaroth wrote:
{name here} wrote:
1. UNIX is a brand name for an operating system family by AT&T owned currently by Novell with certain characteristics. Those that can't afford the license or don't want to pay for one are just Unix-like.
Yes, that's the family I was talking about. It's also referred as Un*x
Quote:
2. This is a matter of opinion, but I'm not one for that whole GNU/Linux crap. Linux is good enough. The kernel and the drivers are basically the operating system - nothing the GNU has really constitutes as being a real operating system - just a collection of software. This is an argument for another day, perhaps.
You're completely wrong.
The OS can't be reduced to the kernel.
Just one example : to be POSIX compliant, an OS has to have a shell compatible with ksh.
The shell used in GNU/Linux for this purpose is the Bourne shell, which of course is not part of Linux.
Same thing for the GNU tools like awk, echo, ed...

Linux Torwald said "Sadly, a kernel by itself gets you nowhere. To get a working system you need a shell, compilers, a library etc. These are separate parts and may be under a stricter (or even looser) copyright. Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft. These tools aren't in the distribution — ask me (or GNU) for more info."

Did you heard about GNU/Hurd, another OS with the same GNU tools, and another kernel (the Hurd) ?

What makes the operating system run? The kernel. It is the basis for everything else. CP/M's underpinnings are considered an operating system, despite them not even having a shell - BDOS (the basic disk operating system which is basically the kernel), and the BIOS (the Basic Input/Output System which is basically the drivers underneath the BDOS). The command line interpereter was a seperate module. This can also be observed in it's shoddy copy MS-DOS, which uses COMMAND.COM as the command line interpereter, which if you delete, you can't use the system, but everything you need to make the system operate correctly is there (or to use a metaphor: The steering wheel, pedals, and stickshift are all missing, but the car can still run. Is it easily functional? No. Is everything there that makes the car go? Yes; there just isn't a humanly operable front to them). Is the system functional? No. Are all the interrupts and controls to make it functional there? Yes, there just isn't a humanly operable front to them. Thus, an operating system GNU is currently not.

Hurd isn't even fully complete yet. People make fun of Hurd 1.0 as much as they do Duke Nukem Forever.

If it doesn't make it run, it's a nonfunctional part which is not necessary. Yes, it'd be a total pain to do anything in it at all, but it's what makes it work. Last time I checked I can't boot GCC by itself; I need a kernel behind it to run, manage, and interperet every instruction so it can work.
MrBlueSky
Studio Madcrow wrote:
Unix is obsolete. Nobody uses it, mainlt because a whole bunch of much better UNIX-like OSes have become available for free. Some, like Linux, were created from scratch, while others, like *BSD and Solaris used to have bits of Unix living in them but have had them removed and replaced with better bits of code.


Strictly speaking an OS is 'Unix' when it complies with the official Unix Specification. The lowlevel implementation details are not important. They will be different between various hardware platforms anyway. Windows has been rewritten from scratch several times, but it is still Windows.

Solaris, for example is a Unix OS, as are UnixWare, HP-UX, AIX. And yes, even Mac OS X is Unix. There isn't some magic piece of source code which has to be present for an OS to make it Unix.
Ranfaroth
{name here} wrote:
What makes the operating system run? The kernel.
It's not because a software is essential to run your OS that you can limit the later to the former. Do you name your car with the name of its wheels ?
The kernel is just one part of the OS. But it's not the only one which is essential.
Quote:
Last time I checked I can't boot GCC by itself
Last time I checked (2 weeks ago), I can't boot with only the kernel.
Quote:
Hurd isn't even fully complete yet. People make fun of Hurd 1.0 as much as they do Duke Nukem Forever.
It's just to explain you that the kernel is just one piece of software which can be changed.
Debian GNU/Hurd (which is an OS) use most of packages of Debian GNU/Linux (another OS).
Hurd and Linux are just kernel.
Kernel and OS are two different concepts...

"In computer science, the kernel is the central component of most computer operating systems"
Mannix
{name here} wrote:
Ranfaroth wrote:
You're a bit wrong...

First, UNIX is a family of OS (which include HPX, AIX, GNU/Linux, Solaris, *BSD....)

Second, Linux is a kernel, and the OS which use them is GNU/Linux.

Search wikipedia for more details...

1. UNIX is a brand name for an operating system family by AT&T owned currently by Novell with certain characteristics. Those that can't afford the license or don't want to pay for one are just Unix-like.

2. This is a matter of opinion, but I'm not one for that whole GNU/Linux crap. Linux is good enough. The kernel and the drivers are basically the operating system - nothing the GNU has really constitutes as being a real operating system - just a collection of software. This is an argument for another day, perhaps.

VAX systems running UNIX do have GUIs sometimes should someone install it. Linux is just more oriented toward end-users who are hackers (not crackers, but hackers in general. Usually they'd use a light GUI with command lines or preferrably virtual terminals for many) rather than enterprise oriented (where all that's practically needed is a mail server), so terminals aren't the prime on many environements. For example, Solaris.


This guy sounds to know what he's talking about. Linux is an open-source kernel that can run on a variety of processor architectures. (Macs, PCs, XBoxes, etc... ...Some shameless ports too...) ...GNU stands for "GNU is Not UNIX." ... It's a recursive acronym or somesuch. ...It refers to the GNU Public License, which is a common license/tradition used to propigate open-source software. ...Personally, if you're getting started, I suggest you start out with the easiest possible installation of Gentoo Linux (which still won't be that easy) and go from there. ...They have a nice little web archive, and you can search for and download whatever (open source / free) packages that fit your bill. ;D Good luck.
Ranfaroth
Mannix wrote:
...GNU stands for "GNU is Not UNIX." ... It's a recursive acronym or somesuch. ...It refers to the GNU Public License
In fact, it's the contrary. It's the GNU General Public License which refers to the GNU project...
GNU Project : 1983
GPLv1 : 1989
Studio Madcrow
MrBlueSky wrote:
Studio Madcrow wrote:
Unix is obsolete. Nobody uses it, mainlt because a whole bunch of much better UNIX-like OSes have become available for free. Some, like Linux, were created from scratch, while others, like *BSD and Solaris used to have bits of Unix living in them but have had them removed and replaced with better bits of code.


Strictly speaking an OS is 'Unix' when it complies with the official Unix Specification. The lowlevel implementation details are not important. They will be different between various hardware platforms anyway. Windows has been rewritten from scratch several times, but it is still Windows.

Solaris, for example is a Unix OS, as are UnixWare, HP-UX, AIX. And yes, even Mac OS X is Unix. There isn't some magic piece of source code which has to be present for an OS to make it Unix.

That's a matter open for debate among Unix fans... Some say that it has to have code from the actual AT&T Unix for it to "really" be Unix. That flies in the face of the "official line" but since when have computer nerds ever cared about the official line...
{name here}
Quote:
Do you name your car with the name of its wheels ?

Do you add the cylinders/hemi in the engine to the name, or the name of the guys that made the steering wheel? GNU is nothing more than the outer frame, steering wheel (I'm talking about old style cars which don't have that fancy power steering but rack-and-pinion steering for the sake of simplicity), gas pedal, and paint on the OS - it's not essential, but it's nice to have. You can still drive a car without an outer frame. It sucks, but it's operational nonetheless if you do some improv - all the parts to connect the steering wheel are there.

Quote:
Last time I checked (2 weeks ago), I can't boot with only the kernel.

And GRUB isn't the only boot loader in the world, so you can't pull that trick out of your hat. LILO is still on top and doesn't even use GPL.

This is how I am used to thinking about operating systems, roughly, so you can understand where I'm coming from on this:

Note that "Nucleus" is just what Gary called the Kernel - there was no standardized way of saying kernel back then so they just used that. This is also very rough - I'm basing all of this from what I studied in the CP/M 3.0 source code and the corresponding System Guide, which includes a BIOS module to control the hardware, a BDOS module to interperet interrupts which come from the application, and the interpereter which was essentially just the command line. Back then there wasn't really firmware with the exception of maybe a useless BASIC interpereter, and assembly was always used...well, there are PL/M modules in one version of the source for the kernel (for BDOS, but it's interfused with BIOS modules) - the other used pure assembly for the actual kernel part and PL/M for only such things as ED.COM, DATE.COM, and PIP.COM (note that CP/M had two version numbers. One is for the BDOS, and another for another thing which I cannot recall at this time, so it is plausible to have different sources for the same version of CP/M).

Even earlier versions of CP/M (specifically one of the early test versions which thanks to Gary's skill is pretty bug free) worked on two modules - the Kernel which fused the BDOS, BIOS, and CLI together, and the loader.

CP/M could run without a command interpereter. It's absolutely useless that way, but it's runnable. Heck, L4 is runnable without a command interpereter - osFree does it at this point. Anything above the kernel is essentially strippable, so I can't see anything of GNU's contributions being needed to be accredited to creating an operating system. It's like accrediting the company that delieved the plastic coverings to the speaker manufacturing company, the company that made the paint to put onto a mug for decoration, or the company that makes the label on a perscription bottle. It's maddness to mention them if they can't build something essential. GNU/Hurd

Besides, that slash is just wasteful. Call it GNU if you want to accredit GNU and don't make that stupid either-or option because it's just plain worthless. Nobody likes FSF anyway - they just care about the freedom of the source and not the needs of the developer, or how everything can actually be implemented. Stallmanism is no better than Stalinism - a figurehead, an agency to fufil the ideologies of the figurehead, and people getting what they need, and not what they want, if that. People want to play MP3s, not OGGs or FLAC. Hell, I've used MODs more than I've used OGG, and no system I've ever encountered wasn't able to play a MOD. People want notepad, not vi or some other text editor with an unnecessary amount of macros rather than an easily accesible menu. They can't even refer to the 'alt' button as 'alt'. They have to use 'alpha' which is completely backwards from what everyone else would have. At least Apple is locked to a single brand so that the Apple key, is, in fact, the Apple key, and not called the cresent moon key or something like that. People want a good, helpful manual system, not a cross referenced cluster ****** of useless technobabble that the end user is not concerned with. When I was trying to configure wireless networking with slackware the man pages were just about as helpful as a three headed monkey eating a bannana. I don't see any information about configuring widescreen monitors. Heck, I know a programmer that was told to RTFMP for math.h only to be no real help for him. People want a GUI that gets everything done efficiently, with a decent file manager, not Nautilus which is all they need. It irks me when I can get my work done better on a supposedly obsolete operating system quicker, better, and easier than with a supposedly state-of-the-art one that rocks.
mehulved
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
Most of the DEs and WMs have been ported to FreeBSD, and now that we also have X.Org 7.2 we can also use Beryl Smile
that's nice. I hope that stops my delays from trying out FreeBSD.
fadirocks
I used UNIX back 1998 and it has a GUI called CDE that's what I used then not sure what year KDE came up and yea it was on UNIX terminal!!!
mehulved
fadirocks wrote:
I used UNIX back 1998 and it has a GUI called CDE that's what I used then not sure what year KDE came up and yea it was on UNIX terminal!!!
Is that Common Deskop Environment that is still found in Solaris 10?
amineelasry
Quote:
A very quick history lesson:
* MULTICS: Multiple user system, very large, very propriatary

* UNIX: Developed to be a replacement for MULTICS. Originally titled UNICS (the joke was that while multics could handle multiple users, hence the name, unics could only handle one... the developer, otherwise it would crash. The name stuck, but was changed to avoid the "eunuchs" comparison)

* Propriatary UNIX-like operating systems are available, such as AIX, Solaris, and others.

* BSD: Berkely System Distribution of UNIX. BSD is now open source, and a variety of version can be had... FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD are the big names.

* MINIX: Written by Andrew Tannenbaum, MINIX was a proprietary OS written to teach students how to write operating systems. It was a UNIX-like OS, not technically UNIX, but functions much the same.

* Linux: Written by Linux Torvalds to be a free hobby OS replacement for MINIX (and to fix a bunch of problems he saw in MINIX). Linux is derived from neither MINIX nor traditional UNIX, but is it's own system. It is, like the rest, a UNIX-like system, though. There's tons (thousands) of distributions of Linux... the big names being Redhat, Debian, Suse, Slackware, Ubuntu, Fedora...

So in summary:
UNIX: a proprietary operating system design
BSD: an open source UNIX-like system
Linux: a different open source UNIX-like system

As a newbie, if you want Linux, I'd suggest Ubuntu. If you want BSD, I'd suggest PC-BSD. If you want traditional UNIX... well I'd tell you not to want traditional UNIX Smile Solaris is now free (and an open source version exists too)... that's about as close as you'll get to old school UNIX without paying for huge licenses.

Hope that helps! If you want more specifics, I seem to recall Wikipedia having a good article on UNIX.


http://www.computing.net/linux/wwwboard/forum/28562.html

<James007>Always use quote-tags and include a link to the source, which is not "comuting. net"</James007>
Ranfaroth
{name here} wrote:
Quote:
Do you name your car with the name of its wheels ?

Do you add the cylinders/hemi in the engine to the name, or the name of the guys that made the steering wheel?
Just a an example :
If you could choose which car to go with your engine, or which engine to go with your car, you can't just name it from one part...
Quote:
GNU is nothing more than the outer frame, steering wheel
Without wheel, your car is useless, ans is no more a car... (But to be more precise, GNU is much more than the wheels, it's all what is essential in a car, except the engine
Quote:
Quote:
Last time I checked (2 weeks ago), I can't boot with only the kernel.

And GRUB isn't the only boot loader in the world, so you can't pull that trick out of your hat. LILO is still on top and doesn't even use GPL.
To bad for you that I tested with LILO Wink
Quote:
CP/M could run without a command interpereter. It's absolutely useless that way, but it's runnable. Heck, L4 is runnable without a command interpereter - osFree does it at this point. Anything above the kernel is essentially strippable, so I can't see anything of GNU's contributions being needed to be accredited to creating an operating system.
Look, an Os isn't some think you run, and stand in front saying "oh, it runs !".
Its something you use. That's what GNU tools are for...
Quote:
GNU/Hurd

Besides, that slash is just wasteful. Call it GNU if you want to accredit GNU and don't make that stupid either-or option because it's just plain worthless.
You didn't understand...
The slash is not a "or option". That's why the OS GNU/Linux is sometime spelled GNU+Linux...

GNU/Hurd means "An Os with Hurd as the kernel, and GNU softwares as essential tools to run it"
GNU/Linux means "An Os with Linux as the kernel, and GNU softwares as essential tools to run it"

Quote:
Nobody likes FSF anyway
Wrong : only narrow-minded developers (like M$ ones) don't like it...


Quote:
Stallmanism is no better than Stalinism
Godwin point. I advise you to stop answering to this thread, or a moderator will have to sanction you...
{name here}
Quote:
To bad for you that I tested with LILO

My point is it isn't licensed under GPL. It's licesnsed with the BSD Licesnse. It's part of open source ("I just want to share my source code with the world") not free software ("I want to share my source code with the world, promote sharing code, and tie myself up with political matters for my software").

Quote:
Without wheel, your car is useless, ans is no more a car... (But to be more precise, GNU is much more than the wheels, it's all what is essential in a car, except the engine

But, is it required

Quote:
The slash is not a "or option". That's why the OS GNU/Linux is sometime spelled GNU+Linux...

This is a little new for me as there are only two symbollisms I know that a slash is supposed to supposed in a name: or, or for (PL/M = Programming Language for Microcomputers), but the latter is a bit deprecated.

But does it really make sense? It's just in-name advertising.
Eric Raymond wrote:

Some people object that the name "Linux" should be used to refer only to the kernel, not the entire operating system. This claim is a proxy for an underlying territorial dispute; people who insist on the term GNU/Linux want the FSF to get most of the credit for Linux because [Stallman] and friends wrote many of its user-level tools. Neither this theory nor the term GNU/Linux has gained more than minority acceptance.


Linus himself wrote:

Well, I think it's justified, but it's justified if you actually make a GNU distribution of Linux ... the same way that I think that "Red Hat Linux" is fine, or "SuSE Linux" or "Debian Linux", because if you actually make your own distribution of Linux, you get to name the thing, but calling Linux in general "GNU Linux" I think is just ridiculous.


English develops lazily, so it's only natural that we call it Linux and not GNU/Linux. If it all early distros chose to call it GNU/Linux and not Linux it would have eventually happened that Linux would emerge as the dominant slang, and word dominating the entire concept because it's shorter and catchier and it's going to be easier to type in IRC and active discussions about the system (at the time of the kernel, I believe GL was already taken by a certain graphics library ?). If you fight it you're only delaying the phonetic inevitable. That's why we just use photoshop as a verb and not a noun with verbs.

Quote:
Wrong : only narrow-minded developers (like M$ ones) don't like it...

A few diggers don't really like FSF. They claim that FSF only takes into consideration software freedom, and not the developers' needs. I'm not much of a developer, so I don't know what needs they have, but I assume that it deals with people just wanting a simple BSD license and nothing more. I believe IIRC they're fed up with all the political junk FSF throws for software and they just want to share their source code and nothing else.
Ranfaroth
{name here} wrote:
Quote:
To bad for you that I tested with LILO

My point is it isn't licensed under GPL. It's licesnsed with the BSD Licesnse.
What does it change in the fact that you can't boot with just the Linux kernel ?
Quote:
But, is it required
Like other parts...
Quote:
But does it really make sense? It's just in-name advertising.
Yes, that's why it's useless to claim "the slash means or"
Quote:
English develops lazily, so it's only natural that we call it Linux and not GNU/Linux.
I agree. And with non geek people (like my parents), I use Linux. But here, we're with aware people, and other people wanting accurate informations. So let's use the correct words...
Quote:
They claim that FSF only takes into consideration software freedom, and not the developers' needs.
Yes, that's a point important : FSF says that the users are more important than the developers. Developers who don't agree with this are egoistic...
Quote:
I'm not much of a developer, so I don't know what needs they have, but I assume that it deals with people just wanting a simple BSD license and nothing more.
BSD is a free software license, approved by FSF... Where is the problem ?
Related topics
Complete Tutorial LINKS for every language
hello (...another stupid user :p)
Google delares war on Microsoft!!!
For everyone with their eyes shut: Get a MAC
MS frontpage or Dreamweaver or NVU?
FTP
Linux Anti-virus
chmod
small problem...hope you can help
Guestbooks?
C++, simple things???
Windows Hosting vs. UNIX Hosting
How to host a site on my own computer
Linux v Windows web servers...
Advice on switching OS [Windows --> UNIX? Linux?]
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Computers -> Operating Systems

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.