LinuxQuestions.org
Register a domain and help support LQ
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Other *NIX Forums > Other *NIX
User Name
Password
Other *NIX This forum is for the discussion of any UNIX platform that does not have its own forum. Examples would include HP-UX, IRIX, Darwin, Tru64 and OS X.

Notices

Reply
 
LinkBack Search this Thread
Old 10-27-2010, 11:20 AM   #1
Mr. Alex
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2010
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 1,163

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Question Did UNIX 7 have dependencies?


Seventh version, the original one. Did it have "GNU/Linux-like" dependencies?
 
Old 10-27-2010, 01:14 PM   #2
MensaWater
Guru
 
Registered: May 2005
Location: Atlanta Georgia USA
Distribution: Redhat (RHEL), CentOS, Fedora, Debian, FreeBSD, HP-UX, Solaris, SCO
Posts: 5,770
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 697Reputation: 697Reputation: 697Reputation: 697Reputation: 697Reputation: 697
That would depend on what the heck "Unix 7" is. Do you mean UnixWare 7?

The answer is likely that there were almost certainly "dependencies" but that such dependencies may not have been labeled that way. (For example many package management systems have "prerequisites".) Also most commercial UNIX products are sold as an overall package so the dependencies are installed with the base OS on the expectation you'll be using something somewhat monolithic. Many have package updates that do have "dependencies" on other package updates being in place but again may not call them that (e.g. they might call them "corequisites").
 
Old 10-27-2010, 01:21 PM   #3
business_kid
Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware & Android
Posts: 5,953

Rep: Reputation: 496Reputation: 496Reputation: 496Reputation: 496Reputation: 496
I have not the pleasure of understanding you. To the extent that anything uses libraries it has dependencies.

In the early days things were much different. I've seen a system from 1974 - no dns, but /etc/hosts held the entire internet. It was a 200k file. How things have changed. In 1974 they had libs, and a libc which was needed for any output.
 
Old 10-28-2010, 02:36 AM   #4
Mr. Alex
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2010
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 1,163

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Also most commercial UNIX products are sold as an overall package so the dependencies are installed with the base OS
Windows is like that, right?
 
Old 10-28-2010, 04:39 AM   #5
jlliagre
Moderator
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Outside Paris
Distribution: Solaris10, Solaris 11, Mint, OL
Posts: 9,459

Rep: Reputation: 352Reputation: 352Reputation: 352Reputation: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Alex View Post
Seventh version, the original one. Did it have "GNU/Linux-like" dependencies?
It is both legally and technically impossible. Unix version 7 was a proprietary OS released in 1979 which predates any FSF software. Gnu code started to be developed in 1984.

But perhaps did I misunderstand your question ...

Last edited by jlliagre; 10-28-2010 at 04:44 AM.
 
Old 10-28-2010, 08:56 AM   #6
MensaWater
Guru
 
Registered: May 2005
Location: Atlanta Georgia USA
Distribution: Redhat (RHEL), CentOS, Fedora, Debian, FreeBSD, HP-UX, Solaris, SCO
Posts: 5,770
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 697Reputation: 697Reputation: 697Reputation: 697Reputation: 697Reputation: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Alex View Post
Windows is like that, right?
Yes. It too releases updates for various items it contains. Some of these are one offs to fix specific bugs or security issues. For XP they also created "Service Packs" that had a plethora of changes so you might be running XP SP1, XP SP2 or XP SP3. Of course Windows is NOT *nix variant - except that old AT&Ters [AT&T originated UNIX] I knew used to say MSDOS stood for:
M icrosoft
S tole our
D amn
O perating
S ystem
And windows is based on DOS.

Last edited by MensaWater; 10-29-2010 at 08:56 AM.
 
Old 10-28-2010, 04:44 PM   #7
paulsm4
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Distribution: SusE 8.2
Posts: 5,863
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Hi -

Unix 7 (circa 1979) did *not* support shared libraries:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/faq/part6/

Here's a good history of Unix:
http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix/history_timeline.html
 
Old 10-28-2010, 05:21 PM   #8
jlliagre
Moderator
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Outside Paris
Distribution: Solaris10, Solaris 11, Mint, OL
Posts: 9,459

Rep: Reputation: 352Reputation: 352Reputation: 352Reputation: 352
So "GNU/Linux-like dependencies" just means "shared libs" ?
 
Old 10-31-2010, 09:01 AM   #9
Mr. Alex
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2010
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 1,163

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
"GNU/Linux-like dependencies" means that package A depends on package B and can't work without it. Can you call it "libraries" - I don't know...

By the way, when some Windows app requires Framework or DirectX - is it a dependency like GNU has? Like some app needs qt or gtk?

Last edited by Mr. Alex; 10-31-2010 at 09:04 AM.
 
Old 10-31-2010, 05:03 PM   #10
jlliagre
Moderator
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Outside Paris
Distribution: Solaris10, Solaris 11, Mint, OL
Posts: 9,459

Rep: Reputation: 352Reputation: 352Reputation: 352Reputation: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Alex View Post
"GNU/Linux-like dependencies" means that package A depends on package B and can't work without it.
Okay, so the answer would be no as there was not yet any notion of software packaging (i.e. standardized way to bundle software including metadata) when version 7 was used. The common way to send software was to use tarballs (tar was precisely introduced with Unix v7) and possibly "shar" files, but maybe that was created later.
Quote:
Can you call it "libraries" - I don't know...
Dependencies aren't necessarily libraries, they can be anything required for a piece of software to work. With Unix v7, as already stated, there was no shared libraries either so software was always linked with the required libraries.
 
Old 10-31-2010, 11:39 PM   #11
paulsm4
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Distribution: SusE 8.2
Posts: 5,863
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
The best example of an operating system with arbitrary, difficult to manage "dependencies" is, of course, MS Windows.

As in "DLL Hell":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DLL_hell
 
Old 11-05-2010, 03:35 PM   #12
MrCode
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Location: Oregon, USA
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 864
Blog Entries: 31

Rep: Reputation: 144Reputation: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by MensaWater
windows is based on DOS
Only very loosely anymore. The days of true DOS-based Windows pretty much ended when Windows 2000/XP came around. Everything is NT-based now, and NT is a different system from DOS entirely. For example, Win 3.1/95 used cooperative multitasking (i.e. non-preemptive; programs had to free resources on their own. This is why the whole system locked up when one program crashed), as DOS didn't support *real* multitasking at the time. Win NT 3.1 and up use the NT kernel, which has preemptive multitasking and memory protection (i.e. programs can't write into/access other programs' memory, etc.).

...Linux (and other UNIX-likes) on the other hand have always had real multitasking.

Last edited by MrCode; 11-05-2010 at 03:38 PM.
 
Old 11-05-2010, 04:58 PM   #13
MensaWater
Guru
 
Registered: May 2005
Location: Atlanta Georgia USA
Distribution: Redhat (RHEL), CentOS, Fedora, Debian, FreeBSD, HP-UX, Solaris, SCO
Posts: 5,770
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 697Reputation: 697Reputation: 697Reputation: 697Reputation: 697Reputation: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrCode View Post
Only very loosely anymore.
Maybe but you still don't have any real control over things until you drop to CMD prompt and that looks very much like the old DOS window.

However, when I said "based on" I meant it started there. Even a UNIX fan boy like me would never say that even XP was as bad as say Windows 95 let alone something like Windows 2. I remember back when I still did a lot of work on DOS I inherited a system that had Windows 2 loaded on top of DOS (the way it was done in those days). After tinkering with it for about an hour I modified the autoexec.bat to prevent it from loading "that useless Windows stuff". It wasn't until I joined a company that was using 3.11 on desktops that I started using Windows with any regularity. Even then it was mainly to launch Exceed to get to my lovely UNIX systems.
 
  


Reply

Tags
dependency, unix


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Unix - System VI Release Notes - More Linux and Unix Humor LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 12-06-2008 03:30 PM
LXer: Speaking UNIX Part 8: UNIX Processing LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 06-14-2008 04:51 AM
LXer: Speaking UNIX, Part 4: Setting and managing permissions on UNIX LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 10-21-2006 01:54 AM
I recieve a failed dependencies error, but I have all required dependencies Laptop2250 Linux - Software 15 02-03-2004 07:58 PM
How to schedule unix script periodically from unix os level??? gopi_20us Programming 2 03-11-2002 06:45 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:51 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration