albertlee Posted June 22, 2004 Posted June 22, 2004 Now, I know both systems have different kernel.... but why both use same commands? and can use same shell? What is the difference? and What is the similarities? Albert
albertlee Posted June 22, 2004 Author Posted June 22, 2004 Oh yes, mostly, I also want to ask.....Which one has better performance/stabibility? Unix or Linux? Albert
Dave Posted June 22, 2004 Posted June 22, 2004 UNIX is designed to run on high-end systems. Linux can be run on your normal desktop PC.
albertlee Posted June 22, 2004 Author Posted June 22, 2004 Then,..... why people install freeBSD on their normal desktop PC? Albert
Sayonara Posted June 22, 2004 Posted June 22, 2004 There could be any number of reasons. - They may be developers for that platform - They may work exclusively with BSD and not have time for another O/S - They could be a bit too geeky ...etc
Sayonara Posted June 22, 2004 Posted June 22, 2004 Assuming they know what they are doing, or can get the right information, most people choose an O/S that is appropriate for what they want to do with it.
albertlee Posted June 22, 2004 Author Posted June 22, 2004 Back to my first 2 messages, I still dont get answers yet..... Waiting for the responds... ps. thx to Sayonara and dave for the replies
Dave Posted June 22, 2004 Posted June 22, 2004 Personally I think you're getting confused. UNIX is not the same as BSD. UNIX is designed to run on extremely high-end servers (i.e. very expensive ones). BSD is more of a server OS than Linux, but it's certainly not the same as UNIX.
albertlee Posted June 22, 2004 Author Posted June 22, 2004 but dave, dont Unix goes in 2 types: AT&T and BSD? Any way, maybe I have to ask again....why do Linux and Unix have same commands and can use same shell? since they are 2 different kernels... Secondly, which one is better on stabibility/performance? Albert
albertlee Posted June 23, 2004 Author Posted June 23, 2004 Sorry,...but,...Any body to my previous message? Albert
Cohen Posted June 23, 2004 Posted June 23, 2004 why do Linux and Unix have same commands and can use same shell? since they are 2 different kernels... Because Linux is a Unix clone, it's to make crossover from one to the other comfortable and to present a farmilair enviroment. which one is better on stabibility/performance? Does it matter? Once you use OS's with this kind of reliability you probably won't even notice any differences in stability.
albertlee Posted June 23, 2004 Author Posted June 23, 2004 Because Linux is a Unix clone' date=' it's to make crossover from one to the other comfortable and to present a farmilair enviroment. [/quote'] If Linux is an Unix clone, then what is the difference between Linux and Unix kernels? Secondly, why Unix/Linux is very stable (except the reason of Open Source, since even commercial Unix(AT&T) is stable)? How do their codes tend to be compare with stable Microsoft NT kernel? Albert
admiral_ju00 Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 Because Linux is a Unix clone, it's to make crossover from one to the other comfortable and to present a farmilair enviroment. Precisely. Once upon a time, a man named Linus Torvalds thought that Unix was wayyyyyyyyyy too expensive. So, he borrowed a few ideas here, a few things there and eventually arrived at what is now known LINUX. It is Open source and Non-proprietary. It can be bought for a very very cheap price, or downloaded for free. Between Unix and Linux, many things look similar but there are also many that aren't. Same difference really when you start playing with different flavors of Linux. Not all are 100% alike.
admiral_ju00 Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 If Linux is an Unix clone' date=' then [b']what is the difference between Linux and Unix kernels?[/b] Secondly, why Unix/Linux is very stable (except the reason of Open Source, since even commercial Unix(AT&T) is stable)? How do their codes tend to be compare with stable Microsoft NT kernel? Albert 1) The post above should fill help you out. 2) The only open source Unix is FreeBSD, do not lump all Unixes into the Open source thingie, not a good idea. Unix was around much longer than any other OS, so it is stable because it has more then 4 decades of revision, and use. 3) You know, I never had the pleasure to compare Windows NT's source code(or anyother Windows code with the exception of Windows 95) to Linux/Unix. Quite frankly, because it is very difficult to get your hands on one - legally, that is. So, officially, the only people who get to see the code for Windows(any version) are those that are directly employed by the Microsoft.
albertlee Posted June 24, 2004 Author Posted June 24, 2004 So, the difference between Linux and Unix is that Linus borrowed a few ideas from Unix kernel to make Linux..... but why he does not clone the whole kernel, which would be better now, wouldn't it? Albert
admiral_ju00 Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 Well, let me ask you this. How would MICROSOFT CORP. feel if YOU rip their kernel (any part or all of it) and embed it in your own system? When you answer this, you'll answer your own question.
albertlee Posted June 24, 2004 Author Posted June 24, 2004 But,,, since Unix goes in 2 ways, AT&T and BSD, and BSD is open source and done by Berkeley Univesity...... Why Linus did not take the whole kernel from BSD? Is it the reason that he could not take it, or he is not allowed to? Secondly, If he cant take the whole kernel, how come he knows the "ideas" of the kernel? Albert
admiral_ju00 Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 Why Linus did not take the whole kernel from BSD? Is it the reason that he could not take it' date=' or he is not allowed to?[/quote'] Dunno, but you can ask him. Snail-mail (work): Linus Torvalds Transmeta Corp 3940 Freedom Circle Santa Clara, CA 95054 USA Phone (work): +1 (408) 327 9830 x328 Email: torvalds@transmeta.com ...how come he knows the "ideas" of the kernel?.. Experience? Here's a concise history of Linux I just found. *long read* http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Torvalds/index.shtml
albertlee Posted June 24, 2004 Author Posted June 24, 2004 Since BSD is open source, why there is only FreeBSD which is a free distribution? unlike Linux? I have also heard that Linux is more free than Unix....What does that mean? Secondly, Is Mac also Open source? Albert
Dave Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 FreeBSD isn't the only variant of BSD. Try http://www.netbsd.org/ for example. Also, Mac OS X isn't open source, but the underlying variant of FreeBSD (Darwin) is.
albertlee Posted June 24, 2004 Author Posted June 24, 2004 So, dave, If FreeBSD(Darwin) is Mac's kernel....... then what do the rest of Mac OS call? Albert
albertlee Posted June 25, 2004 Author Posted June 25, 2004 Ok, dave, in another saying...... Some says that Mac Os is Darwin, which is 40% of the whole OS and is open source kernel..... then what are the other 60% of Mac OS? Albert
Cohen Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 Custom source code written by Apple (fancy GUI etc) I would expect.
Dave Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 Yeah, the window server to handle the UI, and basically everything that you actually see on the screen. It's a total re-write from the pre-OS X versions.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now