LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General
User Name
Password
Linux - General This 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.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 10-02-2002, 03:47 AM   #1
vitoal
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2002
Posts: 7

Rep: Reputation: 0
Linux compared to DOS


I am trying to clear some things out for me. Linux is a much better operating system then DOS and I am enjoying running Linux and using XFree86.

BUT I used Microsoft OS all my life and I just wonder how Linux relates to DOS.

To run DOS all you need is 3 files if I am not mistaken, IO.SYS, MSDOS.SYS and Command.com, most basic commands are built into COMMAND.COM

What are the most fundamental files for linux?????

It also appears to me that each command is stored as an executable file. Commands ls, cd, rm and so on are executable files stored in /bin.

Also is kernel just a one big executable that contains device drivers routines inside. I heard that kernel needs to be recompiled after adding new hardware.
 
Old 10-02-2002, 04:12 AM   #2
moses
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: Arizona, US, Earth
Distribution: Slackware, (Non-Linux: Solaris 7,8,9; OSX; BeOS)
Posts: 1,152

Rep: Reputation: 50
Oh, boy. Where to begin. . .
Linux is so different from DOS, I think, that the only similarities between
them are:
1) They both run on the x86 architecture
2) The both have command line interfaces
3) Windows is (still?) just a GUI to DOS. Sort of like XFree86 is to Linux
4) They both use "device drivers" to talk to new hardware (not in the
same way)

The Linux kernel won't do you any good without a good number of
programs that allow a human to talk to the computer hardware. The
kernel interfaces between the hardware and the various programs out
there.

The differences between the Linux kernel and DOS are so many that
it would be impossible and silly to try to post them. Let it suffice to say
that Linux CAN do things that the people who wrote DOS never imagined.
That's not to say every one of those things has been done, but people
sure are trying. . .

The Linux kernel does not need to be recompiled after adding new
hardware. Linux can be thought of as a microkernel (though this isn't
really true), in that it does the bare minimum needed to interface with the
motherboard and the CPU. Everything else can be built as a module that
drives additional hardware (sound cards, USB devices, etc.). As such,
very rarely does one need to recompile the kernel when you add new
hardware, you just need to load the driver.

The DOS "kernel" doesn't need to be recompiled because it's compiled
for the very minimum, and will work with everything new (as long as it's
backward compatible hardware). There are device drivers that come
with each new piece of hardware, and those drivers need to be loaded
in order for the device to work.

The UNIX world is built up of a bunch of little programs that do specific
tasks (ls, cd, etc.). The reason for this is that while it would be a pain,
one could run a linux system without "ls", "cd", etc. and it would still work
(I know, I've done it -- shell filename completion is your friend). You could
not get DOS to work without COMMAND.COM. Try booting with a boot
disk, remove the disk and try to do something.

I can't actually enumerate the required files to run a linux distro, but you
can go to http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/ and do some reading there
to figure it out, though I think they do have some cruft that isn't strictly
necessary.

There are tons of material available that go into great depths about the
linux kernel, try reading it, it's very interesting.
www.kernel.org www.linuxhq.com www.linux.org etc. . .
 
Old 10-02-2002, 09:14 AM   #3
jglen490
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: The next brick house on the right.
Distribution: Kubuntu 18.04, Bodhi 5.0
Posts: 691

Rep: Reputation: 45
Quote:
BUT I used Microsoft OS all my life and I just wonder how Linux relates to DOS.
It doesn't. There are Linux commands that seem similar to DOS commands, such as "dir", but there all similarities stop. And actually, it's not very helpful to compare Linux and DOS on that level. The approach to file metadata, file storage, file retrieval, file access, and file update are very much different. Scalability and adaptability are far different both philosophically and in implemetation.

Suffice it to say that Linux and DOS are both operating systems that on the surface seem to have some similarities, but are really very different in al,ost every way.
 
Old 10-02-2002, 10:13 AM   #4
neo77777
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Distribution: *NIX
Posts: 3,704

Rep: Reputation: 56
Well if you search a bit around here you'd find original message from Linus himself - Linux is not DOS, Linux is not UNIX either, it is a complete re-write based off Minix. One of the respectful members here namely MasterC has a link in his signature with a diagram of UNIX evolution, try to foolow it up a bit http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html
Master, I hope you don't mind if I steal your link temporarly
and Linus Torvalds' original message, I almost forgot
to include it http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6000

Last edited by neo77777; 10-02-2002 at 10:21 AM.
 
Old 10-02-2002, 10:28 AM   #5
neo77777
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Distribution: *NIX
Posts: 3,704

Rep: Reputation: 56
And to answer the buttom part of your post, yes kernel is a C program that if compressed can easily fit on a floppy, also there are modules that inserted and removed by kernel in runtime, they are C programs as well.
The major files in linux? Well, vmlinuz (or other name variants of the compressed kernel image, you can call it whatever you want as long as it is an exact copy of bzImage,or zImage file) and modules, then I guess /etc/modules.conf and/or /lib/modules/`uname -r`/modules.dep file. That's about it, I guess. Anybody else?
 
Old 10-02-2002, 10:49 AM   #6
trickykid
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2001
Posts: 24,149

Rep: Reputation: 270Reputation: 270Reputation: 270
Quote:
Originally posted by neo77777
The major files in linux? Well, vmlinuz (or other name variants of the compressed kernel image, you can call it whatever you want as long as it is an exact copy of bzImage,or zImage file) and modules, then I guess /etc/modules.conf and/or /lib/modules/`uname -r`/modules.dep file. That's about it, I guess. Anybody else?
Don't forget all the init files and scripts, those are kind of important. And most of the /etc directory for configurations of your system.
 
Old 10-02-2002, 06:35 PM   #7
Half_Elf
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Sep 2001
Location: Montreal, Canada
Distribution: Slackware; Debian; Gentoo...
Posts: 2,163

Rep: Reputation: 46
DOS was developed around 1970, and Unix around 69. So DOS was very inspired bys UNIX. That's why DOS have some similiar command. But that's all, Unix/Linux is thousand time more powerful than Dos can be.
 
Old 10-03-2002, 05:14 AM   #8
kabads
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2002
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 69

Rep: Reputation: 15
Another big bonus for linux is that it is multi-user. Does DOS cope with this?
 
Old 10-03-2002, 08:51 AM   #9
GtkUser
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: Canada
Distribution: Redhat 9.0
Posts: 637

Rep: Reputation: 30
DOS does not support multiprocessing. In modern day Microsoft computers, DOS is handled by a component in the kernel side that converts all DOS based instructions into Win32 instructions.

Linux is a much larger picture to absorb, however you can learn more about Linux implementation than you can about Microsoft implementation because Linux is open source. If you want to understand the difference between operating systems than learn the C programming langauge and get a book on operating system concepts, than get books that examine the Linux kernel. Before long we will be comming to you for answers.
 
  


Reply


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 On
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
linux slow compared to windows? InsaneLampshade Linux - Newbie 11 09-17-2007 07:48 PM
enterprise linux servers compared PlatinumRik Linux - Enterprise 3 06-21-2005 09:31 PM
Linux features as compared to Win2k SAEEDSHAH Linux - Newbie 5 01-31-2004 12:43 PM
bsd compared to linux fatpig Linux - General 3 02-10-2003 02:27 PM
Another Linux Forum but not Compared to this One! trickykid General 4 06-10-2001 09:07 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:20 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
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
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration