GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
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.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
UNIX® is whatever The Open Group says it is. http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/ Granted, nowadays people no longer use the "original" UNIX. For example, I use Mac OS X on my PDP-11!
Last edited by posixculprit; 06-05-2010 at 05:23 AM.
UNIX® is whatever The Open Group says it is. http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/ Granted, nowadays people no longer use the "original" UNIX. For example, I use Mac OS X on my PDP-11!
Mr Code is correct. If by "Unix" you mean the code descended from the original Bell Labs system, then the product marketed by the (almost) late unlamented SCO is the only real Unix.
As I understand it BSD started as the original kernel with added utilities, then they replaced the kernel; otherwise, you couldn't use BSD without paying Unix royalties. I believe HP still support HU-UX, but the product was dropped with the hardware it ran on.
If by "Unix" you mean "POSIX compliant", then Linux is Unix too.
Posixculprit: "Windows dominates the market." What market? The server market? No. the embedded market? No. The mainframe market? Hardly. The PC market is distinguished by the fact that purchasing choices are generally made by people who are less than well informed. I remember when the original IBM PC came out. The reviewer in Personal Computer World described it as over-priced and under-performing, and he concluded "Anyone who buys this is a wally. And by the end of the year there will be at least a million more wallies in the world."
Posixculprit: "Windows dominates the market." What market? The server market? No. the embedded market? No. The mainframe market? Hardly. The PC market is distinguished by the fact that purchasing choices are generally made by people who are less than well informed. I remember when the original IBM PC came out. The reviewer in Personal Computer World described it as over-priced and under-performing, and he concluded "Anyone who buys this is a wally. And by the end of the year there will be at least a million more wallies in the world."
Yes. The desktop market is where M$ is dominant, and on the server Linux is dominant. However, even that's changing. I know for a fact that Obama is a HUGE advocate of FOSS and is deploying it on all government computers as I write. Soon the tables will turn, considering that even the Justice Department, which used to be M$-friendly, is starting to deploy FOSS.
Distribution: M$ Windows / Debian / Ubuntu / DSL / many others
Posts: 2,339
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn
Yes. The desktop market is where M$ is dominant, and on the server Linux is dominant. However, even that's changing. I know for a fact that Obama is a HUGE advocate of FOSS and is deploying it on all government computers as I write. Soon the tables will turn, considering that even the Justice Department, which used to be M$-friendly, is starting to deploy FOSS.
The PC market is distinguished by the fact that purchasing choices are generally made by people who are less than well informed.
Assumptions. One could also make the following assumption: Linux dominates the server market because the people choosing Linux are less than well informed (what percentage of the Linux user base has heard of BSD or alternative UNIX and UNIX-like operating systems? what percentage of the Linux user base has actually -tried- these other operating systems? what percentage of the Linux user base can make an accurate, technical, cold hard facts comparison between Linux and any BSD flavor?)
Once again: popularity != quality.
The line I was replying to:
Quote:
No doubt it works OK on Yahoo's servers, but if it's so great why are they the only company I can name that uses it?
I don't know. If Slackware is so great how come I can't name any company that uses Slackware? If Debian is so great how come Ubuntu has more users? Do you see what I'm trying to say? Can you hear me now?
Last edited by posixculprit; 06-05-2010 at 05:11 PM.
Why isn't Mint on that list? And there was one distro that I saw that replaced APT with something else! I can tell you that being Debian-based is inaccurate when trying to see distros with APT.
Distribution: M$ Windows / Debian / Ubuntu / DSL / many others
Posts: 2,339
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by posixculprit
Assumptions. One could also make the following assumption: Linux dominates the server market because the people choosing Linux are less than well informed (what percentage of the Linux user base has heard of BSD or alternative UNIX and UNIX-like operating systems? what percentage of the Linux user base has actually -tried- these other operating systems? what percentage of the Linux user base can make an accurate, technical, cold hard facts comparison between Linux and any BSD flavor?)
Once again: popularity != quality.
The line I was replying to:
I don't know. If Slackware is so great how come I can't name any company that uses Slackware? If Debian is so great how come Ubuntu has more users? Do you see what I'm trying to say? Can you hear me now?
But can you provide hard facts that BSD is superior.
Also, it migt catch on better if it didn't have a less then intelligent acronym for a name.
Assumptions. One could also make the following assumption: Linux dominates the server market because the people choosing Linux are less than well informed (what percentage of the Linux user base has heard of BSD or alternative UNIX and UNIX-like operating systems? what percentage of the Linux user base has actually -tried- these other operating systems? what percentage of the Linux user base can make an accurate, technical, cold hard facts comparison between Linux and any BSD flavor?)
Once again: popularity != quality.
The line I was replying to:
BSD is MUCH more popular than Linux, as Mac OS X is based on FreeBSD. And the BSD license is too permissive, since it allows corporations like Apple to make money off of it, using that money to feed into marketing tactics that further restrict.
Why isn't Mint on that list? And there was one distro that I saw that replaced APT with something else! I can tell you that being Debian-based is inaccurate when trying to see distros with APT.
Exceptions prove the rule, still doesn't change though what apt is
Why Mint isn't on there? Don't know, ask who maintains the list *shrug*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn
BSD is MUCH more popular than Linux, as Mac OS X is based on FreeBSD. And the BSD license is too permissive, since it allows corporations like Apple to make money off of it, using that money to feed into marketing tactics that further restrict.
How many people who use OSX know what it's based on?
There's not that much of BSD in there though (>afaik<, not a Mac person).
Regarding the licence stuff, personally I prefer the BSD licence simply because it's more permissive than the GPL.
BSD is MUCH more popular than Linux, as Mac OS X is based on FreeBSD. And the BSD license is too permissive, since it allows corporations like Apple to make money off of it, using that money to feed into marketing tactics that further restrict.
can we use the dmg or the mac os x program into BSD?
Kenny.. I don't know how you manage.. but every time I read one of your posts I think "W. T. F. !?". Mac OS X may contain parts that originated in FreeBSD but I wouldn't call that "being based on FreeBSD". At some point Windows used code from FreeBSD too but I wouldn't be quick to call that version of Windows as being a flavor of BSD. You also seem to have a problem regarding the BSD license. Do you even -write- usable software of any kind? The people who apply the BSD license to the software they develop are obviously fine with the BSD license's conditions. Those people do not care (or may even desire) that individuals use their code in commercial projects. Those people simply want their software to be useful, used, etc.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.