Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
Good - at least the fact that I'm learning Linux commands and operating systems will help if I ever trial the bigger UNIX.
From what I can see Open Solaris tales 500MB RAM at idle, which is too much for my laptop at the moment, unless I upgrade. I want to be running max 350-400MB at idle. Ubuntu's very conservative at <200MB at idle.
BSD looks good to experiment with, but the installation procedure is a test in itself and not at all user friendly. However, it has very small RAM & HDD requirements, so I'd probably be after a low footprint application.
Solaris is a registered UNIX product, conformant to the Single UNIX Specification (UNIX 03) standards.
Linux and *BSD are compliant with a lot of standards, but it costs money, etc. to have something registered as even POSIX-conformant, and POSIX is only a part of the larger Single UNIX Specification standards.
Linux and *BSD, in any documentation or anything, will be referred to as a UNIX-like operating system.
Solaris is UNIX
AIX is UNIX
HP-UX is UNIX
OS X (as of Leopard, I don't know if they were before) is using a lot of FreeBSD, and the Mach microkernel. It is a registered UNIX product, conformant to the Single UNIX Specification (UNIX 03) standards, just like Solaris and AIX, and HP-UX, etc. Mac OS X Leopard uses a lot of FreeBSD and also GPL'd software ... they have a modified version of gcc, etc. CNET - Apple being sued by The Open Group The Open Group Register of certified products Apple page mentioning features of OS X.
I don't remember who made the sarcastic remark, "The great thing about standards is that there are so many of them." This is true about Unix standards as well.
There are a number of functions, such as getconf, pathconf, fpathconf, sysconf which can help in sorting out the mess.
Two different Unix OSes can vary more in some areas than a "Real" Unix and Linux.
In the mid-1970's (heh... I was there...) the MULTICS project was a spectacular disaster, of the sort that only a government committee could produce. And so, a bunch of Bell Labs folks who just happened to have a PDP-7 on their hands decided to see what they could do with it. They came up with a little toy of a system they tongue-in-cheek called "Unix." (Multics...Unix... get it?)
Because AT&T was at that time a government-run monopoly, they had to release the source-code of Unix. So they did.
Fast-forward twenty years to a college kid who's freezing his butt off in Finland while hacking operating systems. To keep himself warm, he decides to build "a little x86 OS of his own." And he releases that source code to a Usenet news-group.
The system that Linus Torvalds bases his work upon is Unix ... but, having none of the source-code to the actual Unix system he works instead on a "fairly 'toy'" implementation of the POSIX standard. He employs a rather stunning collection of software tools, called "GNU," which had been pioneered by another rather amazing hacker, Richard Stallman.
And... it just happens to be "the right thing at the right time." From this tiny germ of an idea, and with the combined efforts of literally thousands of engineers throughout the Internet, a very full-featured operating system is created. It isn't Unix, but it follows closely in that system's footsteps.
As time goes on, "the dragon has eaten its tail." Engineering is like that sometimes.
AT&T was a monopoly, but not government owned. Due to an anti-trust ruling, they were not allowed to sell an operating system. So they developed Unix at Bell Labs for in-house use, to process patent applications. Because they couldn't sell it, they gave it away to some Universities. Because of the variety of main frames and mini's in use at the time, even propriety software was sold in source code form. When AT&T was broken up, the prohibition against selling operating systems was lifted, and Unix became a commercial propriety operating system.
Unix was not just used internally or by universities before AT&T was broken up. Several commercial proprietary operating systems based on Unix version 6 and 7 code were already sold in the late seventies and early eighties.
Linux is not based on Unix at all, as many folks tend to think. (lack of technical knowhow, and media influenced that are wrong)
Linux is based on Minix, which is on itself based (partly) on Unix.
So, linux is the so called third generation of the family of Unix, but not a direct member, that is minix.
You're saying that if something is "based on" Unix, then it's Unix ... If something isn't "based on" Unix, it isn't Unix. It's all "based on" Unix.
FreeBSD is not recognized as UNIX. It is not conformant to the Single UNIX Specification (UNIX 03) standards. The official FreeBSD site refers to it as a UNIX-like operating system.
This is a quote from the freebsd.org about page, found here:
It is derived from BSD, the version of UNIX® developed at the University of California, Berkeley. It is developed and maintained by a large team of individuals. Additional platforms are in various stages of development.
^"derived from BSD"^
This is a quote from the official Minix site:
MINIX was released in 1987 as a small easy-to-understand UNIX clone for use in courses teaching operating systems.
Apple's Mac OS X is a registered UNIX product (Single UNIX Specification standards, UNIX 03). It is "based on" the Mach microkernel and FreeBSD, along with other things like a modified gcc, for example.
Look here. Quote:
Full POSIX compliance and UNIX03 certification means you can move all your critical UNIX applications to Mac OS X quickly and easily.
Not UNIX 03, but POSIX compliance is very widespread. FreeBSD, Linux, etc. POSIX is part of the SUS standards.
The Mach microkernel is also "derived". It's not UNIX.
The "not-recognized-as-UNIX" Mach microkernel and "not-recognized-as-UNIX" FreeBSD components, along with modified gcc, and other GPL'd software, and whatever Apple's done with them, make up a "recognized-as-UNIX" operating system. Today.
The fact that FreeBSD is derived from UNIX doesn't make it UNIX. It's not pre-standards UNIX, either.
Today, POSIX and SUS standards are used to recognize UNIX products. POSIX standards are part of the SUS standards. You can find POSIX compliance in everything. Also, the fact should be mentioned that GNU Hurd uses Mach. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX