Linux vs Unix

[Mindovermaster Global Moderator]

I want to hear what you guys think, because all over the web, I hear different things, and I want the end to this...

 

"Is Linux different/same as Unix?"

 

I heard people say they are the exact same thing, just that Linus used Unix to write his Linux kernal.

 

I heard people say that they are two different bunches of code. That they never interacted.

 

What are your views on this matter? Post what you think.

 

(if this is a duplicate, please show me the light)

[adrynalyne]

Different kernels, and because of that different OSes. They do tend to share many of the same utilities and applications outside the kernel though. 

 

 

[The_D0lph1n]

Linux is a kernel, not a full operating system. Unix is/was a full operating system. I don't know of any companies that still use the original Unix OS (like System V), but many organizations use one of the Unix descendants like BSD, Solaris, or AIX. Those descendant OSes were built from the original Unix codebase and are more closely related to each other than they are related to Linux.

 

Linux does not share the same codebase as Unix. Linux is a Unix-compatible kernel that was written basically from scratch. Torvalds didn't fork the existing Unix codebase when he started Linux. While Linux is a Unix-like kernel in that it implements most of the same interfaces as traditional Unix, there are still API differences between Linux and BSD for example, and the kernel is structured differently.

 

So I think that Linux and Unix are different, partly because of the fundamental distinction between kernel and OS, and also because they aren't built from the same codebase.

[sinetheo]

  On 17/02/2017 at 03:02, Mindovermaster said:

I want to hear what you guys think, because all over the web, I hear different things, and I want the end to this...

 

"Is Linux different/same as Unix?"

 

I heard people say they are the exact same thing, just that Linus used Unix to write his Linux kernal.

 

I heard people say that they are two different bunches of code. That they never interacted.

 

What are your views on this matter? Post what you think.

 

(if this is a duplicate, please show me the light)

Expand  

Ok, there are several things going on that is more than just the name Gnu/Linux vs Linux vs Unix crowd.

 

1. Is Linux the same as Unix? Yes and no. Unix is not a single product and hasn't been since Reagan was in office. Unix was not made for microcomputers which today we call PC's. It is for minicomputers which we call servers and legacy mainframes. Linux is a PC thing for geeks. Yes it is based off it just like Android is based off Linux. However, much (not all) of the work on Linux by PC geeks got ported back.

 

But Unix usage is typically different than Linux usage on a PC. One is for old big iron Sun boxes running 17 year old software and never touched unless broken. While the other is run on some servers and geeks basement pcs which are up to date.

 

2. I hate the gnu zealots. No it is pronounced Linux. The GNU zealots are communists who hate not only non free software but any software that is not free enough in that the source code has to be released. I call it Linux because I do not see the GNU project hosting Linux kernel development. 

 

3. Yes the code is different at many levels even if the programs now are shared at the application level. FreeBSD does not share code with Linux and same with Solaris.

 

4. What do I think on the matter? Who cares. Use what I like. I want to mention I use FreeBSD which was traditionally Unix. Some people still call it Unix. I do not as AT&T forced the removal of the source code and while some boxes running BSD are never updated and are legacy most users like to use it a PC or up to date embedded OS.

 

 

[adrynalyne]

  On 17/02/2017 at 03:30, The_D0lph1n said:

Linux is a kernel, not a full operating system. Unix is/was a full operating system. I don't know of any companies that still use the original Unix OS (like System V), but many organizations use one of the Unix descendants like BSD, Solaris, or AIX. Those descendant OSes were built from the original Unix codebase and are more closely related to each other than they are related to Linux.

 

Linux does not share the same codebase as Unix. Linux is a Unix-compatible kernel that was written basically from scratch. Torvalds didn't fork the existing Unix codebase when he started Linux. While Linux is a Unix-like kernel in that it implements most of the same interfaces as traditional Unix, there are still API differences between Linux and BSD for example, and the kernel is structured differently.

 

So I think that Linux and Unix are different, partly because of the fundamental distinction between kernel and OS, and also because they aren't built from the same codebase.

Expand  

When people discuss Linux these days, they typically mean GNU/Linux which is a full OS. 

[SarK0Y]

i like freebsd very much, but bsd Community has gone along wrong lane ==>> they just have run holy wars on lnx a-la zfs vs. btrfs. But ones, like me, need drivers/frameworks to have full compatibility w/ lnx software, lnx fs'es & different hardware as well. in fact, lnx has become true overlord among OS'es.

[Mindovermaster Global Moderator]

  On 05/04/2017 at 00:55, SarK0Y said:

i like freebsd very much, but bsd Community has gone along wrong lane ==>> they just have run holy wars on lnx a-la zfs vs. btrfs. But ones, like me, need drivers/frameworks to have full compatibility w/ lnx software, lnx fs'es & different hardware as well. in fact, lnx has become true overlord among OS'es.

Expand  

Can you drop the "lnx" acronym? Use the full word "Linux", or people are going to think you are weird...

[SarK0Y]

  On 05/04/2017 at 03:00, Mindovermaster said:

Can you drop the "lnx" acronym? Use the full word "Linux", or people are going to think you are weird...

Expand  

short form is more comfortable to write: for instance, we write "bsd", "w10", "w2k".. & no one has any trouble with. + who cares either i'm wacko or not & why i have to mind it?

[adrynalyne]

  On 05/04/2017 at 03:14, SarK0Y said:

short form is more comfortable to write: for instance, we write "bsd", "w10", "w2k".. & no one has any trouble with. + who cares either i'm wacko or not & why i have to mind it?

Expand  

Are two extra letters too much effort for you? If so, the effort we take to figure out what you are even saying isn't worth it. Fact of the matter is, you would already paraphrasing it by saying "Linux". 

Edited April 5, 2017 by adrynalyne

[PGHammer]

  On 17/02/2017 at 03:32, sinetheo said:

Ok, there are several things going on that is more than just the name Gnu/Linux vs Linux vs Unix crowd.

 

1. Is Linux the same as Unix? Yes and no. Unix is not a single product and hasn't been since Reagan was in office. Unix was not made for microcomputers which today we call PC's. It is for minicomputers which we call servers and legacy mainframes. Linux is a PC thing for geeks. Yes it is based off it just like Android is based off Linux. However, much (not all) of the work on Linux by PC geeks got ported back.

 

But Unix usage is typically different than Linux usage on a PC. One is for old big iron Sun boxes running 17 year old software and never touched unless broken. While the other is run on some servers and geeks basement pcs which are up to date.

 

2. I hate the gnu zealots. No it is pronounced Linux. The GNU zealots are communists who hate not only non free software but any software that is not free enough in that the source code has to be released. I call it Linux because I do not see the GNU project hosting Linux kernel development. 

 

3. Yes the code is different at many levels even if the programs now are shared at the application level. FreeBSD does not share code with Linux and same with Solaris.

 

4. What do I think on the matter? Who cares. Use what I like. I want to mention I use FreeBSD which was traditionally Unix. Some people still call it Unix. I do not as AT&T forced the removal of the source code and while some boxes running BSD are never updated and are legacy most users like to use it a PC or up to date embedded OS.

 

 

Expand  

While UNIX started off as a minicomputer/mainframe OS, it did become available for PCs - however, with the sole exception of Solaris until recently, it was far pricier than any other operating system for PCs.  (Solaris in particular had a rep as the green-eyeshade OS - because it was used as the OS of choice for financial institutions - banks and credit unions ran SPARC iron, which invariably ran Solaris.  That meant that if you wanted to learn what banks and credit unions ran, the only REAL option was to learn Solaris for x86 - fortunately, you could get it for exactly nit via the Internet from Sun Microsystems.

 

However, while Solaris had the unique (among UNIX OSes) advantages of costing nothing, it was stuck behind your choice of two window managers, the Common Desktop Environment or OSF/Motif.  Neither was as familiar as xf/86 (AKA AFree) - nor did it support as many graphics solutions as XFree did, either.  Audio support was, in fact, worse than Linux distributions.  That meant you had to jump through quite a number of hoops to run Solaris on garden-variety x86 hardware.  However, once you did, users found that Solaris - even on x86 - largely ran and ran and RAN - it almost never broke.  Even better, Solaris on x86 was - except for hardware differences - absolutely identical to Solaris for SPARC iron; programs for one would run on the other sans modification - which is, in fact, true today.  In fact, if I want an OS that plain and simply doesn't break, as long as Solaris can do the work, it won't be a bad choice - especially on PCs.  (This is especially true now that Solaris has moved to GNOME as a desktop environment, as opposed to either CDE or OSF/Motif.)

[PGHammer]

  On 05/04/2017 at 00:55, SarK0Y said:

i like freebsd very much, but bsd Community has gone along wrong lane ==>> they just have run holy wars on lnx a-la zfs vs. btrfs. But ones, like me, need drivers/frameworks to have full compatibility w/ lnx software, lnx fs'es & different hardware as well. in fact, lnx has become true overlord among OS'es.

Expand  

ZFS started with Solaris - where it gained a reputation for being "stronger than Superman"; there is no equivalent of kryptonite that was capable of mucking up ZFS.  (The issue was, in fact, that ZFS - until recently - REQUIRED Solaris; while Solaris had changed by leaps and bounds - merely in the last days of Sun - from the rather fussy beginnings of CDE and OSF/Motif (it had in fact, dropped both and gone to GNOME as the default desktop environment), it was not as approachable as a Linux distribution or even a BSD - especially for newbies.)

[Anibal P]

  On 05/04/2017 at 03:14, SarK0Y said:

short form is more comfortable to write: for instance, we write "bsd", "w10", "w2k".. & no one has any trouble with. + who cares either i'm wacko or not & why i have to mind it?

Expand  

I've been using Linux since the late 90's, you are the first person lazy enough to shorten it, there's no reason to confuse matters with an unneeded acronym

[Mindovermaster Global Moderator]

  On 05/04/2017 at 03:14, SarK0Y said:

short form is more comfortable to write: for instance, we write "bsd", "w10", "w2k".. & no one has any trouble with. + who cares either i'm wacko or not & why i have to mind it?

Expand  

BSD is a known acronym. I heard of Win10, but never W10... It's a matter of courtesy. Look at this Forum, look at the Windows Forum. I have never seen "lnx" and "w10" being used.

 

It just shows that you are lazy and have no respect for these OS's.

[SarK0Y]

  On 05/04/2017 at 03:54, PGHammer said:

ZFS started with Solaris - where it gained a reputation for being "stronger than Superman"; there is no equivalent of kryptonite that was capable of mucking up ZFS.  (The issue was, in fact, that ZFS - until recently - REQUIRED Solaris; while Solaris had changed by leaps and bounds - merely in the last days of Sun - from the rather fussy beginnings of CDE and OSF/Motif (it had in fact, dropped both and gone to GNOME as the default desktop environment), it was not as approachable as a Linux distribution or even a BSD - especially for newbies.)

Expand  

it doesn't matter zfs is better or not than btrfs: if i got hdd w/ btrfs, what i could do w/ bsd's?

  On 05/04/2017 at 20:09, Mindovermaster said:

BSD is a known acronym. I heard of Win10, but never W10... It's a matter of courtesy. Look at this Forum, look at the Windows Forum. I have never seen "lnx" and "w10" being used.

 

It just shows that you are lazy and have no respect for these OS's.

Expand  

any software is just instrument for me, not religion + i haven't had troubles to share codes/ideas w/ Open Source. so don't tell me about respect, please.

[Mindovermaster Global Moderator]

  On 05/04/2017 at 21:16, SarK0Y said:

it doesn't matter zfs is better or not than btrfs: if i got hdd w/ btrfs, what i could do w/ bsd's?

any software is just instrument for me, not religion + i haven't had troubles to share codes/ideas w/ Open Source. so don't tell me about respect, please.

Expand  

Umm, he never said ZFS is better or worse. He was just expanding on what ZFS was/is.

 

What the #### does your last sentence mean? I'm not talking about software that drives the OS. I'm complaining about your acronym of "lnx" "w10" "w2k". I mean respect to the OS, not to it's well-being.

[Circaflex]

  On 05/04/2017 at 21:16, SarK0Y said:

it doesn't matter zfs is better or not than btrfs: if i got hdd w/ btrfs, what i could do w/ bsd's?

any software is just instrument for me, not religion + i haven't had troubles to share codes/ideas w/ Open Source. so don't tell me about respect, please.

Expand  

Don't take it to heart, most of us understand what you mean by W10, W2K, etc. Post however you wish, as long as it is within the forum guidelines.

[HawkMan]

  On 05/04/2017 at 20:09, Mindovermaster said:

BSD is a known acronym. I heard of Win10, but never W10... It's a matter of courtesy. Look at this Forum, look at the Windows Forum. I have never seen "lnx" and "w10" being used.

 

It just shows that you are lazy and have no respect for these OS's.

Expand  

Just to point out, Lnx is NOT an acronym for linux anyway. the acronym for Linux would be L... W10 actually akes sense and actually is an acronym. 

[Mindovermaster Global Moderator]

  On 06/04/2017 at 05:51, HawkMan said:

Just to point out, Lnx is NOT an acronym for linux anyway. the acronym for Linux would be L... W10 actually akes sense and actually is an acronym. 

Expand  

I hear Linux to be abbreviated as 'Nix. But other than that... Win10 is acceptable along a large number of people, W10 isn't. While it may be an acronym, it is not widely used.

[HawkMan]

  On 06/04/2017 at 05:56, Mindovermaster said:

I hear Linux to be abbreviated as 'Nix. But other than that... Win10 is acceptable along a large number of people, W10 isn't. While it may be an acronym, it is not widely used.

Expand  

Actually it's usually *nix. as in wildcard nix. and when its used like that it doesn't reference just linux all unix compatible systems/OS'. or they're kids who saw someone say *nix, and didn't understand the meaning because they're clueless and thought nix was short for linux because they don't know that unix and unix compatibles exist. 

[Mindovermaster Global Moderator]

  On 06/04/2017 at 06:07, HawkMan said:

Actually it's usually *nix. as in wildcard nix. and when its used like that it doesn't reference just linux all unix compatible systems/OS'. or they're kids who saw someone say *nix, and didn't understand the meaning because they're clueless and thought nix was short for linux because they don't know that unix and unix compatibles exist. 

Expand  

Mhm... People think different things, rather it is correct or not. Welcome to the WWW....

[HawkMan]

Well I've never seen linux referred to as nix, and it makes little sense to, there's linux The kernel there's Unix the OS and there's *nix the unix compatible API's. lnx and nix though... not really. 

[ichi]

Linux is not Unix (the Unix OS) because it was developed independently even while being unix-like at that.

It's also not Unix (the trademark owned by The Open Group) because it hasn't been certified as such, and it doesn't adhere to the Single Unix Specification that's required to get that certification.

 

If what is or isn't "Linux" is convoluted already (the kernel? the whole OS? any OS with the Linux kernel?), regarding "Unix" it's even more so. Depending who you ask, "Unix" can be Bell Labs' OS (and those directly derived from that one), any OS certified by The Open Group, or any OS that's Unix-like.