Author Topic: Linux muscles into MS space?  (Read 1756 times)

Jenda

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 530
  • Kudos: 326
Linux muscles into MS space?
« on: 4 June 2005, 15:57 »
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/story/0,10801,102053,00.html?source=x72

Can anyone tell me what are the notable differences between using a Linux sys and a Unix one? (apart from the fact that it's a completely different thing, of course...)

toadlife

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 730
  • Kudos: 376
    • http://toadlife.net
Re: Linux muscles into MS space?
« Reply #1 on: 8 June 2005, 07:00 »
Quote from: Jenda
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/story/0,10801,102053,00.html?source=x72

Can anyone tell me what are the notable differences between using a Linux sys and a Unix one? (apart from the fact that it's a completely different thing, of course...)

Alot of BSD/UNIX people bitch about linux because while it seems to be a UNIX system on the surface, there are a ton of non-standard architectural changes underneath that make it incompatible with traditional UNIX os's.

For some examples look here:
http://www.spatula.net/proc/linux/index.src

*note that most of the stuff on this page is old and doesn't apply any more, but it still mgiht give you an idea of what "non-standard architectural changes" means.

As for the article you linked to, all I can do is sigh. The guy who wrote it is doing little more than spewing OS talking points. A particular quote he used in the story is just plain idiotic...

Quote
"Linux is merely a Unix derivative, and Unix is a better operating system for business," says programmer Angel Gomez, who is also chief technology officer at Datatek Applications Inc. in Bridgewater, N.J.

If UNIX is so much better for business, then why have so many businesses moved from UNIX to Windows over the last twenty years?

Here's another one that's even worse...

Quote
Unix was the very first nonproprietary networked operating system and has experienced relatively few flaws. Bell Labs researchers created it in a time when perfection, not an instant return on investment, was the objective. Because Linux is essentially a Unix derivative, it follows the same mantra.

There is so much wrong with the above paragraph, that it's hard to know where to start.

1) UNIX in it's truest form has never really been non-proprietary. The only reason the BSD's are non-proprietary is because AT&T mishandled their code when dealing with Berkeley and lost the rights to all of the code written at Berkeley. We basically have the BSD's by luck.

2) As for Bell Labs creating it with 'perfection' in mind, what a load of shit. UNIX started out as a huge kludge written very quickly to fill a need. It has evloved so much since then that it is not hardly comparable to when it first started. In the early days of UNIX, most people who moved to it from other Operating Systems hated it with a passion because it was unstable, unfriendly, and slow as hell.

3) The last part is correct. linux started off as a kludge, jsut like UNIX did, and has slowly evolved into something much better over time.
:)

WMD

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,525
  • Kudos: 391
    • http://www.dognoodle99.cjb.net
Re: Linux muscles into MS space?
« Reply #2 on: 8 June 2005, 08:01 »
Quote
If UNIX is so much better for business, then why have so many businesses moved from UNIX to Windows over the last twenty years?

Windows hasn't been around for that long. :p
My BSOD gallery
"Yes there's nothing wrong with going around being rude and selfish, killing people and fucking married women, but being childish is a cardinal sin around these parts." -Aloone_Jonez

toadlife

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 730
  • Kudos: 376
    • http://toadlife.net
Re: Linux muscles into MS space?
« Reply #3 on: 8 June 2005, 08:06 »
Quote from: WMD
Windows hasn't been around for that long. :p

Sure it has....

Windows 1.0 was released on [size=-1]November 10, 1983. So technically Windows has been around for 21.5 years.

:p
[/size]
:)

WMD

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,525
  • Kudos: 391
    • http://www.dognoodle99.cjb.net
Re: Linux muscles into MS space?
« Reply #4 on: 8 June 2005, 08:25 »
1985, not 83.  And nobody used Windows 1.0.  Or 2.0, for that matter.  And they didn't do any "UNIX replacing" with Windows for years after that.

BTW...wtf kind of anti-Linux site is this? http://www.spatula.net/proc/linux/kiddie.src

Talk about kiddies. :rolleyes:
My BSOD gallery
"Yes there's nothing wrong with going around being rude and selfish, killing people and fucking married women, but being childish is a cardinal sin around these parts." -Aloone_Jonez

toadlife

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 730
  • Kudos: 376
    • http://toadlife.net
Re: Linux muscles into MS space?
« Reply #5 on: 8 June 2005, 08:25 »
whoops I was wrong on that release date.

[size=-1]November 20, 1985

So, your right. Oh well. 19.5 years.
[/size]
:)

toadlife

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 730
  • Kudos: 376
    • http://toadlife.net
Re: Linux muscles into MS space?
« Reply #6 on: 8 June 2005, 08:28 »
Quote from: WMD
BTW...wtf kind of anti-Linux site is this? http://www.spatula.net/proc/linux/kiddie.src

It's not an anti-linux site. Just someones site, which has some anti-linux sections on it.
:)

Orethrius

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,783
  • Kudos: 982
Re: Linux muscles into MS space?
« Reply #7 on: 8 June 2005, 08:53 »
Quote from: toadlife
It's not an anti-linux site. Just someones site, which has some anti-linux sections on it.

...all of which either cite pathetic reasoning (cumstains on the wall w00t w00t lolzorz!!!111111) or five-year-old articles (I think the MOST recent I saw was early 2002 there).  Having seen the entirety of the site (that means going to the root directory and working back through his rants from there), I must ask, can he come up with nothing more recent?

Proudly posted from a Gentoo Linux system.

Quote from: Calum
even if you're renting you've got more rights than if you're using windows.

System Vitals

toadlife

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 730
  • Kudos: 376
    • http://toadlife.net
Re: Linux muscles into MS space?
« Reply #8 on: 8 June 2005, 09:20 »
Don't argue with me. It not my site. The site owner is a programmer. Of all of the complaints about linux I've read, it's mostly from programmers, and it's usually about linux not conforming to various UNIX standards.

I could care less about these things.
:)

Orethrius

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,783
  • Kudos: 982
Re: Linux muscles into MS space?
« Reply #9 on: 8 June 2005, 10:33 »
Quote from: toadlife
Don't argue with me. It not my site. The site owner is a programmer. Of all of the complaints about linux I've read, it's mostly from programmers, and it's usually about linux not conforming to various UNIX standards.

I could care less about these things.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm merely pointing it out.  Don't take it the wrong way.

Proudly posted from a Gentoo Linux system.

Quote from: Calum
even if you're renting you've got more rights than if you're using windows.

System Vitals

toadlife

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 730
  • Kudos: 376
    • http://toadlife.net
Re: Linux muscles into MS space?
« Reply #10 on: 8 June 2005, 11:39 »
No problem.

I guess I should have pointed out the relevant stuff from that flaming linux rant page instead of just linking to it...

Quote
# /bin/sh != sh; /bin/sh == bash. Lame. Nonstandard. Result: broken shell scripts and nonportable code.

# /usr/bin/make != make; /usr/bin/make == gmake. Lame. Nonstandard. Same result as above: nonportable code.

/usr/include/linux (come on. honestly.) Lame. Nonstandard. (for the clue-deprived, this means that any code written for linux using the linux/ headers will be incompatible with all other Unix flavors.) Guess what: string.h, types.h, malloc.h, signal.h, and so-on don't belong in a platform-specific include directory. Hope you didn't want to port your code...


There are also a few commands in linux that don't exist or are named differently in traditional UNIX, and vice versa. SOme commands, like the tar utility have different switches and/or different levels of functionality. If you get set in your ways, moving from one to the other could probably get annoying, but I really don't think it would be too big a deal. I doubt if you will notice much difference at all unless you get into very advance system administration or programming.
:)