Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX

Linux muscles into MS space?

(1/3) > >>

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...)

toadlife:

--- 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...)
--- End quote ---

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.
--- End 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?

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.
--- End quote ---

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:

--- 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?
--- End quote ---

Windows hasn't been around for that long. :p

toadlife:

--- Quote from: WMD ---Windows hasn't been around for that long. :p
--- End quote ---

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:
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:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page