Unix or Linux

[karma]

Well just wanna discuss that what is better linux or unix
Ya I know that linux is a flavour of latter but still ...

[Metgod]

Hey,

This is actually been something that we've discussed before. The below are my thoughts on this issue.

Linux is not the same as Unix. Simple as that. For one, Linux was written for PCs years after the original Unix. File system is different (some what), different files, different kernel, etc.

Unix is, in my opinion, more solid/stable and often more secure. Of course, the issue of security is different because you give the operating system to a good admin and they can tighten it up (except for maybe windows :) ).

For me, I prefer Unix (and will say consistently that Linux is _not_ Unix). I'm also the one who prefers the original/old school type of systems (or anything). I prefer text only on websites, hate html in emails, etc.

I also ran away from linux early on because 'everyone' ran to it as if it was so special. when well, for me, Unix is more special :)

Then people comparing it. and Red Hat (while not terrible it seems to have the reputation for well, I don't kow...).

My overall opinion is that the real unixes are superior. However, there is one thing that is the most important thing ever :

Everyone should use what works for _them_


So while I do prefer unix, I won't be causing an OS war (I think those are just silly).

I hope this would open some more conversation as i think I brought up some decent points.

What does everyone else think ?

Cheers,
Metty

[godaigo]

Well I agree Metty, everyone should use what works for them. I do have to say though that as a complete newbie I found that Linux was much easier to (initially anyways) find resources and information about and on. Also there is the issue of ease of installation. Especially of late the various flavors of Linux have become extremely easy to install and initially configure. This compares to the, relatively, difficult installation of the various BSD flavors. Although, I do think that due to the increased regulation BSD is more secure than your average Linux distro. Either way though I think that most of the regular commands and a good idea of how a decent operating system should work would be achieved by exploring either option. Just my .02 centavo's. Cheers!

[Metgod]

I agree there too. I think that some of the linux distros are very easy to install.

As for the BSD install, it's not too difficult :)

You just  have to get used to it and learn how it works. Once you spend a little while on it, you will do fine :)
Perhaps I could do a small write up of the options and what you can do to get a system up and running quickly (I think I set up my bsd system in 15 minutes or so, network and all). Plus bsd (freebsd at least) has the ability to re-enter the install at any time for root.. from there, you can reconfigure your (or configure a new) NIC, you can add ports, you can add so much more and reconfigure. You can upgrade, etc. It's quite useful.

But anyhow.. Linux is something entirely different if you ask me. And I know others agree with me. But OS wars are stupid, especially while it includes MS OS's (a little cryptic joke there :) )

But I do think Unixes are more secure than linuxes (at least out of the box). I will say that I hate OpenBSD though.... sure it's tight but it reminds me of a completely unique system. Although there are various files that are all the same, there is a complete set of files that are not 'standard'. That annoys me but for some it works. I'm fine with FreeBSD thank you :)

(and the bsd box I have is a development/coding box.. so you can do a damn lot with freebsd and other systems :) )

Hoping to hear more replies! Oh, and thanks to karma for originally posting this.. this is an issue I love and am glad others think of it as something of interest too!


Cheers,
Metty

[karma]

Well thanks to all u guys for sparing ur time to discuss the issue .Actually Metgod it was after reading ur earlier posts i wanted to bring this issue that if "they" are not same than which one is better .. and the disscusion has primarily zeroed in to
1- (As most of u said) Unix is bettter
2- it depends what works for u

But the point(as far as i know) that i wanted to drive home was actually that the unix kernel is primarily swap based while linux is swap + patch based ..what i wanted to ensure is that application wise which is better and afterwards for applications like network programming (which is one of my prime intrest) whose implementation is better ...well if u guys stumble upon something in this regard please discuss it ..Thank u again

[godaigo]

One thing that I'm kind of interested in that some of you might know is how does Linux compare to Minix? I personally have never encountered Minix outside of a history book, but I thought with all the extensive computer background this group can call upon someone else might have. Just curious as to how it compared to both Linux and it's own Unix parents??? Cheers! And thanks Metty and karma for getting us going!

[karma]

Today I got the chance to read a book which says that Linux is alltogether same to Unix in every sense and even better at low end users like programmers...but the superiority of Unix  comes into the picture for powerful applications like at server side operations ..and  Godaigo  minix is one of the earlier flavours of linux which is small in size (I have even come to know that entire minix comes in 1 or 2 floppy)..Ya its not in much use for the reasons pretty much obvious

[godaigo]

I know that there was some hard feelings by Andrew S. Tanenbaum who developed minix, a computer scientist out of the Netherlands? who was working on micro-kernels, regarding some of the dialogue surrounding the initial development of Linux by Linus, who was at least partially inspired by Tannenbaum's operating system. As I recall, and this could be wrong, Tannenbaum was offended by something that happened and would not meet with Linus. An unfortunate occurence(sp). But has anyone actually taken a look at this? According to the official page it is a Unix clone developed for teaching purposes and has an active newsgroup related to it. Anyone wanting more info should go to http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/minix.html Cheers... and thanks for the replies!

[Cobra]

I use Redhat 7.3 , freeBSD 4.0, Windows XP Pro, Some version of Mac OS that i rarely touch because i fucking hate macs more than i hate dogs that shit on footpaths only for some unexpectent fool such as myself to come along and stand in it (Reinactment of previous events).

So who cares .. Oh by the way if this reply is not up to date with what you guys are no talking about on this post.. I don't care, because i didn't bother to read the post..

AT ALL!! ..

Read the subject like... and that was it..

Ta-da ... Remember kids, you get a dog for christmas, i will kick your teeth in! .... ***SMILE***

[XT]

Hmmm,

There isn't much difference between UNIX and Linux. Linux is basically POSIX compliant. If you have Redhat or something it *looks* very different from a traditional UNIX look&feel. If you get slackware it feels more like a BSD system.
On UNIX you have a lot of GNU software available  (well, Solaris atleast.. i believe it comes with Gnome, whether or not you would call it 'linux software'), and I wouldn't like working on a UNIX system that doesn't have my favorite GNU system tools.
I think a UNIX system also feels more integrated and more logical as it is developed within one company or in a more tight group (like BSD).. Linux has alternatives for everything and every distro does it completely different. The difference in feel between a Gentoo system and a Redhat system is like the difference between Redhat and Solaris..
If you just look at the Linux kernel, why would you compare the Linux kernel with another kernel? Programs just use the OS API, like glibc which just follows standards and has some additional GNU-specific things but most programs are written for portability.
So what about 'Linux is not UNIX'.. ofcourse it is not.. Solaris is not BSD.. that's the same kind of difference. In fact, BSD is less Solaris than Linux compared with Solaris and vice versa.
It's more about the organization of the file system, the differences in the main operating system tools and services that makes the differences, but there is hardly a difference in functionality, except that for Linux you have dozens of choices. Linux really is just a bunch of Free software tools put together and when using a distro like Debian it just runs fabulous.
However, there's no usage difference between UNIX and Linux.. UNIX is alot of different systems that are derivates of UNIX but are just as much as different from each other as they are different from Linux, just as every Linux distribution is quite different among each other.

This question of what's better is merely a question of which is better; open/free or closed software -- it's a personal thing. And it's also about which system is very conservative in keeping old-style UNIX experience.

[Metgod]

Hi,

Firstly, anyone who says that Linux is superior to another OS (or vice versa) is a fool. Tha's a matter of perspection, just like many other things in this world.

As for Solaris and GNU software, that is just not true. A mate of mine has a bunch of sparc stations running Solaris and there is no built in gcc or anything similar to GNU software. I would be interested to know what you are referring to ?

As far as Linux is very similar to Unix, that is not really true. That is also a matter of perspection of what make something different. On linux machines, different distros, I see the file structure quite different. The point made that BSD is closer to linux than solaris.. heh.. when I saw slackware just a month ago, the file system was completely different as was the kernel. BSD nor Solaris have glibc but instead have a different library for C. But... glibc is not related to the OS itself.

I would also be careful when saying that the difference of what is better is open or close software. BSD is open source and I'd definitely call that UNIX (afterall, bsd was a main type of unix long before linux appeared). Linux was, iirc, a completely (note completely) different system designed for PCs from scratch.. I'd hardly call that similar in the sense of this topic.

Also, with Unix you have just as many choices with linux.. ports collection,  much of the gnu software works and if there is not a port of a specific file, then there is just as good a choice. Example is glibc and glib. They work just fine, the both of them.

There is no such thing as a superior OS.. and OS wars are incredibly stupid, but there definitely is a lot of changes to linux and unix.

a quote :"It's more about the organization of the file system, the differences in the main operating system tools and services that makes the differences, but there is hardly a difference in functionality, except that for Linux you have dozens of choices."

Not really true at all. Functionality has nothing to do with what is the same or not. Further, with Unixes you have choices just as well. Btw, it seems this is kind of (note KIND OF)  'self-contradictory'.. why ? Because you say that there is hardly a difference and then you say 'except ....' with a rather large difference indeed.



As for the three.. Linux, Solaris and BSD...

I have to say that Solaris is the least alike... and the one without all the extra gnu stuff.


But yes, it can be a matter of perspection. If someonee has a strange idea of what's the same (or different) then they will have completely different systems. Either way, you will find quite a bit of people (maybe those who have been around a bit longer) saying Unix is NOT linux and vice versa.

Main question remains : Does functionality mean it's the same even if everything else is different ? No, it reallyi isin't. Just like if everything is the same but functionality is different. The answer is again no.

another thing.. why would I compare just the kernel and not everything else ? That's a really simple questio to answer... because the kernel is the CORE of the OS.. That's quite important in comparison.

Maybe there are more but those are some things to think about ...

Cheers,
Metty

P.S. if this message seemed as an 'attack' of any kind, my apologies; I didn't mean it that way.

[Metgod]

Hi again,

I'm looking at my post and wondering why yet again I'm elaborating so much.. Still, I stand with my point of unix isn't linux quite a bit.

What I could have simply said though, is ...

"I think of the kernel as a very important thing in the comparison because it is afterall the core of the operating system."

Maybe that's more clear.

Cheers,
Metty

[karma]

Thanks Metgod ur post was really comprehensive but still i would like to do more research  it and if i get to know something new i'll defnitely post it for all u guys ...Once again thanks again to godaigo, Cobra ,XT ,Metgod for your contribution

[XT]

Hi,

Firstly, anyone who says that Linux is superior to another OS (or vice versa) is a fool. Tha's a matter of perspection, just like many other things in this world.

Hmm, i didn't say linux is superior to another OS.. (except windows, but i didn't say that also ).

As for Solaris and GNU software, that is just not true. A mate of mine has a bunch of sparc stations running Solaris and there is no built in gcc or anything similar to GNU software. I would be interested to know what you are referring to ?

I was saying that GNU software runs on solaris, and Gnome II is shipped with Solaris 9

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/2241961

And when working on Solaris I'm happy to have GNU software running.

As far as Linux is very similar to Unix, that is not really true. That is also a matter of perspection of what make something different. On linux machines, different distros, I see the file structure quite different.

Wasn't I saying this too? "It's more about the organization of the file system, ...", but somuch for that.

The point made that BSD is closer to linux than solaris..

Not so, I said this:
"So what about 'Linux is not UNIX'.. ofcourse it is not.. Solaris is not BSD.. that's the same kind of difference. In fact, BSD is less Solaris than Linux compared with Solaris and vice versa."
So that means:

1)Solaris is not BSD
2) BSD is less Solaris than Linux is and vice versa

That is; Try porting software from solaris to BSD or from BSD to Solaris and you would have more problems than if you port from BSD to Linux or from Solaris to Linux.. Linux supports most (all?) of BSD library and (all?) of System V style .. but that's not only about Linux, but more about GLIBC.

heh.. when I saw slackware just a month ago, the file system was completely different as was the kernel.

Either they did a good job at following the linux file system standard or they made a very very bad move . But I think they did the first thing; follow the linux filesystem standard..

BSD nor Solaris have glibc but instead have a different library for C. But... glibc is not related to the OS itself.

Okay, so you only want to talk about the kernel? Usually everyone would agree that a critical component such as a system library is part of the operating system. I know one thing for sure; the GNU project was about writing a free operating system.
As for "glibc is not related to the OS itself".. well it's operating system software, that's a fact.. it belongs to the GNU operating system and Linux distributions use it alot for their system. I have a Solaris box with alot of GNU software.. but yeah it can run without, but I was just pointing out that the difference isn't that great as one can have GNU software on Solaris, BSD or Linux..

I would also be careful when saying that the difference of what is better is open or close software. BSD is open source and I'd definitely call that UNIX (afterall, bsd was a main type of unix long before linux appeared). Linux was, iirc, a completely (note completely) different system designed for PCs from scratch.. I'd hardly call that similar in the sense of this topic.

Hmm.. the code isn't similar no.. that shouldn't bother much people.. but exactly how different is it when I can run the same tools on UNIX and on Linux . The only difference I see here has more to do with development methodology and perhaps philosophy.. now if someone asks which is better you wouldn't want to go and compare them based on Development methodology.. You can look at what things are different, but I can still have my Linux look and feel on BSD and Solaris.. also it's unfair nowadays to basically compare UNIX and Linux with each other on terms of what is better.. Linux distributions among themselves are pretty different.. So don't start comparing redhat to FreeBSD..

Also, with Unix you have just as many choices with linux.. ports collection,  much of the gnu software works and if there is not a port of a specific file, then there is just as good a choice. Example is glibc and glib. They work just fine, the both of them.

That's right, further pulling down the differences right

There is no such thing as a superior OS.. and OS wars are incredibly stupid, but there definitely is a lot of changes to linux and unix.

So is there among different Linux systems.. and it is questionable whether Linux is an OS anyways.. that's why I used the broad term of "free software against the rest" .. if you run BSD with alot of ports software, what difference remains for a user to compare.. the network stack? come on.. get real.. these aren't comparable. You would be comparing where which file would be.. If anyone asks a question of 'which is better, UNIX or Linux" would you recommend someone based on the difference in internal kernel implementations?

a quote :"It's more about the organization of the file system, the differences in the main operating system tools and services that makes the differences, but there is hardly a difference in functionality, except that for Linux you have dozens of choices."

Not really true at all. Functionality has nothing to do with what is the same or not. Further, with Unixes you have choices just as well. Btw, it seems this is kind of (note KIND OF)  'self-contradictory'.. why ? Because you say that there is hardly a difference and then you say 'except ....' with a rather large difference indeed.

Hmm.. i don't follow.. I said "except that for Linux you have a dozens of choices" and about that you say "with a rather large difference indeed" but before that you said "functionality has nothing to do with what is the same or not".. that sounds pretty contradictory by itself .
Anyways.. you are right about that functionality doesn't have to be that different.. because it all does the same and they both share alot of the philosophies of UNIX.. so there is not toomuch difference in using these two systems, which we've been debating all along.

As for the three.. Linux, Solaris and BSD...

I have to say that Solaris is the least alike... and the one without all the extra gnu stuff.

Heh, except that I see many Solaris boxes running lots of GNU software . . like GCC, VIM (well not GNU but free software; third party), GNOME and probably alot more (but these are the ones I use on thse boxes..
Also, Linux supports alot of SysV stuff, which BSD doesn't so Linux still is more Solaris than BSD is.. which is one of the points i tried to make..

But yes, it can be a matter of perspection. If someonee has a strange idea of what's the same (or different) then they will have completely different systems. Either way, you will find quite a bit of people (maybe those who have been around a bit longer) saying Unix is NOT linux and vice versa.

Yeah but I'm NOT saying UNIX is LINUX!!! GNU'S NOT UNIX Remember.. But IF you are looking for differences among the two then also try comparing BSD with Solaris which both are UNIX systems.. SysV and BSD probably have more distance between each other than Linux has between the two .. Hmm i wonder who's around longer.. just because i'm new on this forum doesn't mean i'm new in the scene, not by far

Main question remains : Does functionality mean it's the same even if everything else is different ? No, it reallyi isin't. Just like if everything is the same but functionality is different. The answer is again no.

We were talking about which one is better which was the MAIN question.. so you have to look at functionality and user experience .. the look and feel.. If you want to resort to the internals then these are differences in ideas on design and how the operating system is put together .. you can't tell which one is better in that respect...

another thing.. why would I compare just the kernel and not everything else ? That's a really simple questio to answer... because the kernel is the CORE of the OS.. That's quite important in comparison.

I haven't heard you talking about the kernel at all.. But again we are talking about which OS is better.. UNIX or linux.. now then go compare solaris to BSD.. would you still say UNIX has one kernel.. so how does one go to compare the range of UNIX kernels with one linux kernel, tell me.

P.S. if this message seemed as an 'attack' of any kind, my apologies; I didn't mean it that way.

Me neither.. the fact is I think that we both have the same view but have a different viewpoint...

[Metgod]

Hey,

Ok.. very good arguments there and in some of them I don't even know how to respond *lol*

Anyhow.. I think we were looking at things a different way (or I was at least )

I misinterpreted your things. hey, what can I say.. I was up all night friday and saturday at a concert... that and I read things to a very literal meaning at times. I guess we were thinking the same thing just differently.

I know you never said linux is superior to unix, that was some others (off the board) saying that.

And you're absolutely right.. GNU is afterall, an acronym for 'GNU's not Unix' )


And yes, the C library/et al is rather integrated into the system itself.

"That's right, further pulling down the differences right "

Good point there as well.. hehe.. I made the original message about that there are different options for everything and you replied with that.. but you're right.. in a strange way that does make it less different...

Ok, I think you made very good arguments, although I think that a couple (only a couple..) of my arguments are good.. There are others I could reply to but they all boil down to the same thing; PERCEPTION )



*grats XT*

Cheers,
Metty

P.S. about those who have been around longer, I wasn't implying you haven't been around.. I can tell by your posts that you are not exactly new )