Did UNIX 7 have dependencies?
Seventh version, the original one. Did it have "GNU/Linux-like" dependencies?
|
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"). |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
But perhaps did I misunderstand your question ... |
Quote:
M icrosoft S tole our D amn O perating S ystem And windows is based on DOS. :D |
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 |
So "GNU/Linux-like dependencies" just means "shared libs" ?
|
"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? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
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 |
Quote:
...Linux (and other UNIX-likes) on the other hand have always had real multitasking. :D |
Quote:
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. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:54 PM. |