Unix Systems
| Author | Topic: Unix Systems |
|---|---|
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 3320
|
written Tuesday, April 6 2004 11:45
Profile
Ok. I know absolutely nothing about Unix Systems, but I saw an example of one in Jurassic Park. Is there anyone here that uses one? What are they like? And please, talk in plain English. I am not a tech person and I don't understand programming languages. [ Tuesday, April 06, 2004 11:47: Message edited by: Sherlock Holmes ] -------------------- (Looks around in the Study) Colonel Mustard: "Just checking." Mrs. Peacock: "Everything all right?" Colonel Mustard: "Yep. Two corpses. Everything's fine." "Keep your wits about you, the game is afoot!!" - Sherlock Holmes Posts: 935 | Registered: Friday, August 8 2003 07:00 |
|
Babelicious
Member # 3149
|
written Tuesday, April 6 2004 12:08
Profile
Homepage
What you saw in Jurassic Park was Silicon Graphics' FSN 3D file manager, running on the IRIX operating system. Unix is a name referring to a class of computer operating systems. The original Unix was written by Thompson and Richie at AT&T's Bell Labs; they utilized their new C programming language to do so. Thus, C and Unix were wed from birth. Unix was popular because, unlike its predecessor MULTICS, it was small and flexible. It was what's called a "time-sharing" system; today, we'd call that "multi-tasking." It allowed multiple people to use a single mainframe at once. Over the years, different companies licensed the Unix operating system from AT&T. Among these were: * IBM (developed AIX) * SGI (developed IRIX) * Microsoft (developed Xenix) * Santa Cruz Operation (purchased Xenix and developed SCO Unix) University of California - Berkeley also developed their own version of Unix from the original source code, called Berkeley Software Distribution -- BSD. After some costly lawsuits, most of BSD was rewritten to contain no AT&T code. As a result, BSD was an entirely separate implementation of Unix with no copyright enforced on it. The current holder of the Unix trademark is the Open Group, which certifies "official" Unixes. The current holder of the copyright on the original Unix code is SCO Group, which resulted from an unholy matrimony of Caldera and the original SCO. There are two pedigrees of Unix, as a result. They are called 'SysV' (developed from AT&T code) and 'BSD' (developed from Berkeley code). (The following are all offical Unixes.) SysV systems: IBM AIX SGI IRIX Caldera/SCO OpenUnix and UnixWare Hewlett-Packard HP-UX BSD systems: Sun Microsystems' Solaris FreeBSD OpenBSD NetBSD (an assortment of other *BSD forks) In addition, there are a group of "Unix-like" or "Unix-based" systems. These behave superficially or mostly like Unix, but differ in significant ways or do not derive from the original Unix code. GNU/Linux is a Unix-like system, developed by the Free Software Foundation and a Finnish programmer named Linus Torvalds. It derives no code from the original Unix, and was developed originally to work on home PCs such as the Intel 386. Since then, it has expanded to be suitable for "big iron", and has gained some support from Unix heavies such as IBM and Novell. Sun Microsystems and Microsoft Corporation consider Linux to be a threat to their (respective) Solaris and Windows NT operating systems. NeXTStep was a hybrid system, whose differences from its BSD base are rather technical. Instead of focusing on the traditional Unix programming system, NeXTStep used a special programming language (Objective-C) and its own set of libraries. NeXT developed their own computers, and NeXTStep environments ran on PowerPC and Intel machines. They were eventually purchased by Apple Computers, who based their recent Mac OS X on NeXT technology. (Thus, OS X is not a Unix; it is a Unix-like for kernel reasons.) BeOS was developed by Be Inc. (now defunct, owned by Palm) and had some Unix-like characteristics mixed with MacOS-style simplicity. Unfortunately, it was a desktop system that only supported single-user login. I could go on, but I figure I've lost you already. To sum up, "Unix" describes operating systems that follow a set of conventions regarding multiple users, user interface, and programming. EDIT: I use GNU/Linux, by the way, and have for almost seven years. I have experience with Solaris, AIX, and most of the BSDs as well. The primary difference between Unix-like systems and their competitors (VMS and today WinNT) are pretty technical and philosophical. [ Tuesday, April 06, 2004 12:12: Message edited by: Maaya ] -------------------- Beatoff Valley: A story told out of order. Posts: 999 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 1217
|
written Wednesday, April 7 2004 16:35
Profile
Homepage
Isn't Apple OS X based in Unix? -------------------- ALBATROSS!!! -John Cleese !!!Long live Monty Python!!! Not a Chance! Long Live The Weather Balloons! Posts: 304 | Registered: Monday, May 27 2002 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Wednesday, April 7 2004 16:47
Profile
Homepage
No. [ Thursday, April 08, 2004 19:02: Message edited by: Nemo Custer Impune Lacessit ] -------------------- AnamaFreak (3:59:56 AM): Shounen-ai to the MAX Misogynism is the wave of the future, but it sure pisses the womenfolk off. Shocking, isn't it? Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, April 7 2004 18:32
Profile
Homepage
If Djur's explanation was too much for you... my impression is that Unix is a lot like DOS in a PC, only way better and more stable. That's the quick answer. And Alec? Look here. I have no idea what this means in any sort of technical sense, but that's how they're advertising it. [ Wednesday, April 07, 2004 18:33: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!! (The home of BoA's HLPM, newly updated to v1.1!) Rate my scenarios! Northern Kingdom 0: Prologue High Level Party Maker Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 1217
|
written Wednesday, April 7 2004 18:58
Profile
Homepage
Alec, Sorry to say I told you so, but... I TOLD YOU SO! -------------------- ALBATROSS!!! -John Cleese !!!Long live Monty Python!!! Not a Chance! Long Live The Weather Balloons! Posts: 304 | Registered: Monday, May 27 2002 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, April 7 2004 22:14
Profile
Homepage
It depends what you mean by "based on". It's not a Unix in the strict sense, but it's derived from something which itself was derived from something which is arguably a Unix. [ Wednesday, April 07, 2004 22:16: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- I believe there are 15 747 724 136 275 002 577 105 653 961 181 555 468 044 717 914 527 116 709 366 231 425 076 185 631 031 296 protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons. -- Sir Arthur Eddington Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Babelicious
Member # 3149
|
written Friday, April 9 2004 08:58
Profile
Homepage
I mentioned OS X, but I'll clarify. Apple can't say OS X is Unix. It isn't certified, and it probably couldn't be. They can say it's Unix-based, though, since it's a mutated NeXTStep which is itself a heavily mutated Mach/BSD hybrid, and BSD was begat by SysV Unix. But the only BSD derivative that is an official Unix is Solaris/SunOS. And Unix is basically as far away from DOS as one can get. MS-DOS was based on (stolen from) QDOS, which was a sloppy imitation of CP/M, which was intended to be a VMS-like system for personal computers. DEC'S VMS operating system was actually the yin to Unix's yang. Unix and VMS geeks always used to get in arguments back in the '70's, since they represented such different ideologies. (VMS tended towards monolithic software, where Unix tended towards tiny, specialized programs.) VMS was and still is considered the most stable multi-user operating system ever released. Some VMS machines have been up for decades. Interestingly enough, one of the main architects of VMS later was hired by Microsoft and became the project head for Windows NT. Some of VMS's concepts were used in WinNT. Sadly, the whole "stable, reliable, secure" bit was left out. Anyway, DOS and Unix are as separate as can be. DOS is a single-tasking execution environment for small computers; it's barely an OS. Programs it runs basically run on the bare metal, since DOS provides such lousy APIs by itself. It provides absolutely no memory protection or device regulation. Unix, on the other hand, is a multi-tasking, multi-user operating system. It provides a complete set of IO and systems functions, and provides a regular and uniform interface to devices. Memory is protected, and permissions are applied strictly to keep each user in their place. -------------------- Beatoff Valley: A story told out of order. Posts: 999 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2820
|
written Wednesday, April 14 2004 20:23
Profile
Not to start a flame war, but NT isn't that bad... Anyway, I applaud Unix for maturing so well over the decades. Does anyone know the general disadvantages of Unix, though? -------------------- How do signature's work? -Keep Posts: 1415 | Registered: Thursday, March 27 2003 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 18
|
written Thursday, April 15 2004 05:03
Profile
Homepage
Looking for someone to further your argument eh? Good luck! Mac OS X is based on the Unix ideology, as (the obviously very well read and experienced) Maaya wrote. Unix is a server operating system, it was made with the intention of being a stable and highly customisable OS to run on big computers where you can't afford things like crashes. Along the way, many of the advancements *nix developers have achieved (and discovered) when it comes to running big computers, have been scaled down for desktop computers. This is why the third fastest Super Computer on earth (that we know of - *gives NSA a shifty look*) is able to run an (admittably highly modified) personal computer OS. Hmmm, I'm going to start a topic on the VTSC, I wanna brag about how cool the PowerPC 970 chip is... Md. Posts: 304 | Registered: Monday, October 1 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4239
|
written Thursday, April 15 2004 06:38
Profile
quote:I thought the new one was second fastest, wasn't it? Or is that just me? And while OS X Unix may not be certified Unix, I bet it can be legally proven to be a Unix OS, or Apple would have been sued by now. But maybe not.  -------------------- There are two kinds of game players...those who are newbies, and those who were. Posts: 322 | Registered: Monday, April 12 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, April 15 2004 06:47
Profile
Homepage
It only calls itself "Unix-based", never Unix. Apple has good lawyers who are careful about language. -------------------- I believe there are 15 747 724 136 275 002 577 105 653 961 181 555 468 044 717 914 527 116 709 366 231 425 076 185 631 031 296 protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons. -- Sir Arthur Eddington Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2820
|
written Thursday, April 15 2004 10:36
Profile
I think Darwin is "based" off of BSD, so it's safe against any crazy unix lawsuits. Plus, it is very different from any other variation. -------------------- How do signature's work? -Keep Posts: 1415 | Registered: Thursday, March 27 2003 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4239
|
written Thursday, April 15 2004 15:48
Profile
Eh, whatever. It's close enough for me. I'm 'learning Unix' in my advanced computers class on OS X. It's pretty funny what we have to go through, though... -------------------- There are two kinds of game players...those who are newbies, and those who were. Posts: 322 | Registered: Monday, April 12 2004 07:00 |
|
Babelicious
Member # 3149
|
written Thursday, April 15 2004 17:15
Profile
Homepage
Here's a critique of Unix. It's old, but it's still pretty valid. Essentially, Unix tends to concentrate on aggregations of simple, unsophisticated applications and the ingenuity of system admins as opposed to a carefully architected design. Simplicity is valued over completeness and perfection. Also, NT had a slightly more robust permissions system until recently, but NSA's SELinux has introduced some pretty damn sophisticated security abilities to Linux. -------------------- Beatoff Valley: A story told out of order. Posts: 999 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 18
|
written Thursday, April 15 2004 18:55
Profile
Homepage
quote:I seem to remember Caleb telling me about NSA actually doing something for "the good of computing" with one of their latest releases. He's one of those elitist Gnome developers who gets into big flame wars with KDE types though, so I tend to put everything he says in the "google it first to verify" box. Md. Posts: 304 | Registered: Monday, October 1 2001 07:00 |
|
Babelicious
Member # 3149
|
written Thursday, April 15 2004 19:08
Profile
Homepage
SELinux is pretty cool. The Gentoo team outfitted a computer with it and networked it, advertising that the root account had no password. It still hasn't been hacked, since even root is carefully sandboxed. The GNOME/KDE war seems so silly to me. I'm frankly glad that they're beginning to collaborate, because it would be a great leap to have the two systems be at least superficially similar. Sharing desktop information, menus, maybe even themes, etc. Then, the GNOME people can go on stripping every last bit of functionality out of their software, and the KDE people can go on and finally turn KDE into a really fancy assembler. -------------------- Beatoff Valley: A story told out of order. Posts: 999 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |