Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's 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.
Depends on what you mean by "files". Interpreted items such as shell or perl scripts will likely run but may take some tweaking for minor differences. Not all Linux options to commands are available to Unix and vice versa and there may be simple differences in output such as where the command shows up in "ls -l" - might be column 53 on one and column 55 on another so "cut -c 53- " would give odd results).
Also if you have something "#!/bin/bash" as your interpreter line in a Linux shell script you'd likely have to replace it with "!/bin/ksh" on Unix as bash is not the default shell for Unix and usually isn't even installed unless someone added it after the fact - not part of the distributions usually.
Binaries almost certainly won't for two reasons:
1) binaries are processor type specific - something designed for a RISC chip won't run on an x86 (PC) chip. (Doing "file <filename>" would tell you its a data file rather than an executable.)
2) Even when processor type is the same there are apt to be differences in libraries called by the binaries (possibly even the library name itself). If "file <filename>" reports it as an executable you might be able to try running it but if it makes call to external libraries as most things do nowadays its very likely to fail.
Depends on which Unix on which platform and which Linux on
which platform you are talking about ... generally it's safe to assume
that things that can be compiled on Unix can be compiled on Linux
and vice versa (potential library dependencies granted). For binaries
it's not necessarily true (e.g. an executable from Intel/Linux WON'T
run on PPC/AIX).
Not familiar with darwin (OSes don't evolve - they're intelligently designed )
Seriously though a claim to "run Unix and Mac OS X" seems a little broad for the reasons I mentioned before. There are many variants of Unix (its been around since 1969) that run on a plethora of hardware (x86, Sun SPARC, IBM RS6000, HP PA-RISC, Motorola, PowerPC, DEC Alpha are just a few I've encountered) and as noted even on a single platform like x86 you can have BSD, Solaris, SCO, Linux (in most of its distros), AT&T SVR4, Qnix, Xenix and God knows what all.
Early on before the advent of shared libraries I did have some success in running AT&T compiled binaries for x86 SVR4 under SCO 3.2-4.2 on x86 but only because it was a self contained binary so it was processor specific and OK (of course even there you'd could see unexpected results due to things like expected field placement as I mentioned for scripts). However nowadays almost everything relies on shared libraries.
So unless darwin is running "virtual servers" on top of your "physical" chip its unlikely to run everything. Its hard for me to believe there's a product that runs every conceivable Unix "virtual server" though I could see where one might run one. Note that if they are saying they run Mac OS X which supposedly is running a Unix kernel (I've heard arguments that it doesn't actually) it may be they're loosely using the terms Mac OS X and Unix interchangebly.
Last edited by MensaWater; 11-19-2005 at 05:45 PM.
Thanks for all this information. Just for all ur guy's info Darwin is the open source mac os x kernal that is also partially based on unix. The fact that darwin is based partially on unix is what confused me.
The OS you're running is less relevant than the architechture that you're running it on. Binaries are compiled to run on a specific processor and they are not interchangable. Any x86 stuff won't run on PPC, regardless of whether you're using linux, AIX or Darwin.