Unix same as Linux?
 

I have question.

Few months ago i had an idea for making a "Linux Router" (Some Linux distr. + 2 cards + D-Link Router).

New i got a idea for doing the same thing on Unix.

I'm totally amater in Unix, so i don't know nothing about it. But i'd try to do the same thing as in Linux. Are the commands for Unix equal (or more then not equal) to Linux's or not? Will be there a large diffrent?

Thnx for help.

well Unix is officially (AFAIK) owned by SCO, called Unixware. they technically own the name. but really i doubt that's what you mean. if you're referring to AIX, HPUX, Solaris etc... then these are just as different from Linux as from each other. I'm probably wrong on offical legal technicallities, but just think of all these things are UNIX variants, just as similar and as different as the next.

The main differences seem to be in the "style", such as "BSD" or "System V". Linux is closest to the "BSD" style of doing things. Solaris used to be like BSD, but now they've converted to the System V style (that must have been a HUGE project!). BSD is typically considered the "little computer" way of doing things, whereas System V is the style that you find in the big old mainframes, etc.

Hope that's not too confusing, but that's the best way I could think of to describe the main differences...

AFAIK there are differences in commands between variants of Unix and even between different Linux distributions but they shouldn't be too major. I think Slackware is known for staying pretty close to Unix commands. There's always the man pages for help.

Actually, I think Novell owns "Unix" these days - SCO's claims to the name are being challenged in court. .

That's a good point: they are all equally different from each other, and at the same time they're not that different from each other.

I think splitting Linux out from the Unices (or "Unixen") is like splitting hairs and it's unnecessary and confusing for newbies. All Unix variants subscribe to the same basic philosophy of computer use, and are, at least superficially, identical in user interface (be it graphical or CLI). They even share a huge variety of programs: the GNU system will work on most Unices, as will X, and the window managers for X. People who use these systems often share the same preferences for software to use (Latex, etc) and many of the difference in use come down to circumstances (e.g., what's available at a site), or personal preferences.

If you're using Linux, you're closer to using Unix than you were with Windows, and even closer than with Mac OS X, which is (unbeknownst to even many Mac users) another variant of Unix.


**Edit: let me place a huge caveat on what I just said: this is from the perspective of the user. If you're a developer and developing software for a particular system, then those "personal preference" differences end up becoming huge differences in implementation. I'm saying this keep any debate friendly.**
That Unix philosophy I refer to is "do one thing and do it well," the best exceptions being Emacs and Perl (let me put it this way, I would be writing this in Emacs if I was satisfied with w3, the Emacs web-browser).

I seriously plan to start writing it "unix".

Joel

First you need to get your hands on a UNIX OS that runs on your hardware. Your options there are probably pretty much limited to Solaris/x86. The other UNIX OSs you would either have to pay a lot for, or don't run on hardware you could afford, or both.

Then for building the firewall (I believe what you're talking about is a firewall, not a router) you would need to know the packet filter interface. None of the UNIX OSs have iptables/netfilter, that is a Linux-only abomination (thankfully--it's one of the worst packet filtering interfaces that exists). Solaris/SPAC did have a firewall package available last time I installed it, but I have no idea how to configure it. You're going to be spending a lot of time figuring that out (most companies that buy Sun boxes would just buy Checkpoint, or some other commercial firewall software for Solaris).

So the practical answer to your question is: Don't bother.

the paractical answerr is taht Linux is jsut another flavour of UNIX (basicly teh first free unix)

for a firewall i woudl recomend IPCOP (www.ipcop.org, www.ipcops.com)
which is actualy a very specialised linux distrobution (based on 2.4.x i belive)

But that's totally wrong. Linux is not UNIX, it's a UINX-like OS (it's somewhat POSIX-compliant), but the init system and many other aspects are non-traditional UNIX. BSD operating systems are much more like UNIX, and in fact evolve from the original UNIX source. BSD was also created before Linux.

The UNIX Rosetta Stone.
UNIX history.
The Open Group.
OSI position paper.
How much time did you want to spend? :)

Linguine vs. Linux: the Epic Battle
 

And linguine is not spaghetti either. If I'm hungry I could eat either one.

The most important thing about whether it's pasta, is that neither linguine nore spaghetti is a pizza, so people know what they're getting if you serve either linguine or spaghetti. All those foods fall under the same noodle paradigm. "Serve me pasta" is far more specific than "Serve me Italian food."

For those of you who don't like metaphors or food, Linux falls under the general Unix paradigm, but if you spell unix "UNIX" or "Xenix" or "Netware" or "Solaris" then Linux is not Unix. Also if you're obsessively detail-oriented and enjoy splitting things into categories, then Linux is not Unix, and an alligator is not a crocodile, nor is a raven a crow (check my credentials before you argue that last one).

Is AIX Unix? What about IRIX?

Joel

http://kernelbook.sourceforge.net/pdf/

From Chapter One, paragraph one:
Unix is a well-defined standard. Linux is a loose approximation - it's not SVR4, it's not BSD, it's not POSIX, and it's not Unix. The best definition of Linux is "a loosely Unix-flavoured operating system which implements the glibc API".

Indeed, those who does not want to believe that should visit gnu.org: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not Unix”

BSDs are UNIX [called BSD UNIX in the past] the only reason that they cannot be called that is that UNIX is registered trademark. Before lawsuit with AT&T there was 4.3 BSD UNIX [Design & Implementation of the 4.3 BSD UNIX], after 4.4 BSD [Design & Implementation of the 4.4 BSD]

from freebsd.org:
It is derived from BSD, the version of UNIX® developed at the University of California, Berkeley.

"We're not playing Dungeons and Dragons, we're playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, Second Edition."

All of the above are good points if you are going by the legal or technical, or historical definitions of Unix (properly written UNIX). However, for the user today, there's very little distinction between even a proper UNIX and Linux, because they employ the same paradigms. In other words, if you show Linux or UNIX to a lawyer and a UNIX/Linux developer, respectively, they'll definitely come up with some differences. On the other hand, for the user experience, they have too many commonalities to be distinguished for practical purposes. I can grab the console on any one of my colleague's Macintoshes and my Linux knowledge carries over to user-level applications (applications in the broad sense, rather than the computing sense). If somebody asks you a Unix question, can you answer it if all your experience is with Linux?

Here's what it looked like when I used to log in to UNIX:

Here's what it looks like now when I log in to Linux:

The commonalities extend to other elements of the user interface: many the same programs are used for the same purposes on AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, Linux and everything else Unix.

Have you considered that Linux can be Unix, but UNIX can't be Linux? There are differences; there are different histories; there are different technical definitions; there are legalities involved in calling something one thing or another. If you allow one to be a class and the other to be a member of that class, then everyone's correct.

Let me give you an example near and dear to my achin' heart: Bluegrass Music is country music (with lowercase initials). However, most Country Music (with upper-case initials) these days is not Bluegrass and could not be. They come from the same tradition, include many of the same people, and share musical elements. People in the bluegrass community love to say "that's not bluegrass" and it's easy to say that about plenty of music, and it's true in most cases. Then along comes somebody like Alison Krauss whose music is just good and defies categorization, but everybody would agree that her music is country music of some kind. As long as you enjoy it, does it matter what you call it? Similarly, everybody would agree that UNIX of any kind, Linux and BSD are not Micro$oft operating systems, nor are they BeOS. Bothering to split things up within the group of systems that employ the same paradigm is too restrictive.

Joel

trashbird1240 if your casual definitions were legally correct, you would owe SCO $699.00 per processor for the use of unspecified IP for your use of Linux.
While getting sloppy with definitions may be okay in a casual conversation insisting that they are entirely correct it not necessarily true.