Slackware = "most unix-like" distribution ?
I keep reading that Slackware strives to be the "most unix-like" distribution. What does that actually mean? I've tried searching, but it's sort of a tough one. Most searches result in the phrase "Slackware strives to be the most UNIX-like", which obviously doesn't get me too far.
Is it about configurations or directory structures? For instance, Arch stores network config in rc.conf (I think) and Debian has /etc/network/interfaces (I think). Obviously I'm a bit new to all this. Or maybe directory structure? I understand some distributions re-organize things like /usr in both structure and purpose? Just trying to get my head around the whole "Linux thing" - trying to understand why some distros thrive and some crash, etc. Thanks! |
There have been many, many different implementations of Unix. Mac OS X is UNIX. Solaris is UNIX. AIX is UNIX. Xenix was UNIX.
If one day, eventually, perhaps, maybe, one of these people who claims "most UNIX like" for Slackware or any other distro actually defines which UNIX they refer to then I'll probably fall off my chair. btw there is not one Linux based OS which complies to the UNIX specification as defined by Single UNIX Specification, so the whole business of asserting UNIXness is doubly bogus. Best just to leave them to their fantasies and use the one you like the best. If it's Slackware then good for you. If it's something else....good for you too. |
I don't know if it is or not, I actually never got my hands on a "pure/true" Unix, but it is my perception that it is a somehow "hardcore" distribution. You can tell just by reviewing some posts you see on this forum, where people coming from other distros would find it very difficult to achieve certain things that seemed easy on theirs. See this for an example of what I mean, posting #10 is the most interesting IMO.
And from my personal experience, I can tell you that I turned to Slackware exactly because of the statement that says that Slackware is the most Unix-like distro. I started with Mandriva back in October of 2006, installed it with a graphical partitioning tool it has (don't remember the name) and then I used it for a couple of months, thinking "wow, I'm using Linux". Then when I first tried to compile something from source, I found out I didn't had any development tools available, so I knew it was time to get a real distro. I spent around month and a half researching, and everywhere I read that Slackware was the most Unix-like, and since that was what I wanted, I went for it, ignoring the warning coming with it, that it was too "difficult". With Slackware I had to learn to choose a partitioning scheme as well as to partition a disk, to install the whole system, to choose what I want or not, what kernel to use and a lot of other things that have given me understanding of how things work. Some things were not a walk in the park, and you can see my actual postings, I still have a lot of things I don't understand or I'm not able to fix without asking for help, but it has been/is a great constant learning experience. ;) |
Slackware has a simliar installer to the BSDs (FreeBSD, NetBSD); it is definitely Unix-like.
I am a Unix user, but, I choose Slackware for my primary OS. Slackware rules. :) |
I am inspired every day with the time and work the Slackware team does. I laugh everyday about slackware being a NOT on the bleeding edge well trust me it runs a vanilla kernel and that means alot. Because I run Slackware I work and trouble shoot every thing new I can find on Slackware it runs KISS O/S
Keep It Simple |
Quote:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/li...lack.html#side |
I come from a Unix background (if you can call it that), working up from GECOS (on Honeywell mainframes -- not strictly "UNIX" but pretty similar and born from early collaborations), to System 3 (running on Cromemco MC68000 boxes in a couple of megabytes of memory on 50M disk drives; go figure), to "pure" System V, Release 4 (I have a source license and a bunch of 9-track tapes), to Solaris (which is pretty much SVR4), to SCO (also SVR4) to Slackware Linux. What I have always liked about Unix is that SVR4 is, for all practical purposes, the same irrespective of platform -- you can walk out of one development shop into another and you're immediately comfortable -- and what I've always like about Slackware is that it is the most un-fooled-around-with version of Linux I've found; Slackware doesn't do things "for" you (or, more accurately, "to" you) like other distributions seem to insist upon. And I can, generally without twiddling, develop software on a Slackware box and port it to a Solaris box without changing anything; i.e., compile and go, and vice-versa.
There are, to be sure, a couple of subtle differences in the way a few standard utilities are invoked (there are GNU extensions in some utilities that make them behave differently) but once burned twice shy and you learn quickly to use what you've got instead of what might be nice (though it usually doesn't matter). I have more trouble going from Slackware to, say, Ubuntu than I have ever had going from Unix to Slackware (bear in mind that I'm primarily a developer, so I'm more interested in building applications than I am in using applications). Bottom line is that Slackware adheres to M. Douglas McIlroy's Unix Philosophy: A Program or Function Should Do One Thing and Do It Well. |
Hi,
Quote:
Each of the indicated OS are the Vendors attempt to be a UNIX like OS or a variant of UNIX. It may be semantics to you but UNIX is the only UNIX. Others are variants of the UNIX OS. Sure there are attempts to be defined by the 'Single UNIX specifications' but a lot of vendors take privileges. So you should already be on the floor from your own statement. :) Quote:
I'm laughing all the way to the bank since I don't have to pay the UNIX license for my GNU/Linux. |
Actually Mac OS X is UNIX, as is Solaris. Xenix was UNIX (licensed from At&T). UNIX has a specification, a definition. It's not defined by the act of asserting one's opinion and level of amusement on LQ. Operating systems such as OS X and Solaris are UNIX and can legally describe themselves as such, while GNU/Linux may not. That's why it is described as UNIX-like. UNIX is a trademarked name and those operating systems which decribe themselves as UNIX do so because they meet the Single UNIX Specification and are certified to be UNIX.
You can very easily check these things for yourself, as can anyone else who wants to. You can visit http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/unix.html and read Quote:
I'm not advocating or using OS X or any other UNIX btw. I use GNU/Linux. Your assertion that OS X, Solaris etc are not UNIX is plainly and demonstrably erroneous. These are not UNIX-like. They are UNIX, while GNU/Linux is UNIX-like. GNU's Not UNIX....does that phrase ring any bells? Isn't it awful when facts get in the way of dearly held religious belief? Keep on laughing :) |
Seems I stirred up a hornet's nest; that's good right?
I'm starting to get the point of why so many people who have been using UNIX for so long prefer Slackware. Seems like a good starting point, with a steep learning curve, for someone new to this whole thing. We've been looking over different distributions for various server apps, and it really seems like Slackware and Debian are the main contenders unless you're willing to pay. We don't develop any apps here, just looking for a few simple things like DHCP, DNS, and then maybe a few desktops migrated from Windows so our team can get used to the idea. Tried Ubuntu, openSuSE, Arch (liked this one the most so far), and Fedora. It's a tough job pulling people away from Windows after 10+ years, though. Thanks everybody, that was way more informative than any google search. |
So I started thinking a little bit more about this, and I realized that a few people mentioned Slackware "only does what you tell it to". How does that relate to the fact that Slack has become full DVD install? Granted, you can select what packages you want installed, but there's so many with such vague descriptions I can't imagine anyone actually sits through that whole process? Doesn't that leave you open to a bit of randomness just having all that stuff float around?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Are there really people out there who deconstruct every action and command into its component parts? Booting would take all day. Can a person (fantastically and bizarrely) simultaneously claim to use and understand a computer and OS while regarding automation with suspicion? But why not attempt to make the least automated computer operating system? It might be fun. Here's my offering: http://img.zdnet.com/techDirectory/ABACUS.GIF It only does exactly what it's told but I'm worried the frame is superfluous. *so does a good dog. |
Quote:
No matter how much software you install off the DVD, your system will still be relatively vanilla to start. Quote:
Quote:
As to the original question, I think you're going to have a hard time getting a simple answer. Since there are/were so many different "flavors" of Unix, and so much difference between them, even defining "Unix" is hard enough. AIX is a type of Unix. But I really don't think you could say Slackware is like AIX. The same applies to HPUX and any number of other Unixes. IMHO it doesn't much matter anyway. Slackware is Slackware. Some things are similar to other systems, some things aren't. |
I coded C for a few years on a PDP-11/34 running Unix version 7. I don't see any real meaning in the phrase "most Unix-like" -- GNU/Linux offers the functionality of Unix, pretty much, with a huge number of improvements. What more do you want?
As mentioned above, there is a legal meaning to "Unix" but apart from that, I don't see the point in belaboring it. Slack is a nice hands-on distro that's pretty solid as long as you don't have cutting edge or exotic software needs. It's not Unix, just like no other Linux distro is Unix. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:36 PM. |