UNIX Wars - Which is better and why

[MetalheadGautham]

Many of us are sick and tiered of windows and have switched to one of the *nixes. From being as classy as a mac, to as geeky as debian, from being as simple to use as ubuntu to being as complex as netBSD, from being as powerful as Solaris to as weak as Damn Small Linux, from being as rare as HP-UX to being as common as SuSE, there are a wide variety of *nixes.

But even within this nix community, we are all flaming each other because each one appears to have something that the other does not. So lets bring it out here - Which *nix is the best and why?

[The_Devil_Himself]

all have some specialty or other,just pick what suits you the best.OR else just make a custom linux for you and enjoy.

Diversity doesn't mean competition.They all compliment each other.

[Zeeshan Quireshi]

I'll Select FreeBSD(or any BSD) if you wanna do Command Line stuff only.

[zyberboy]

PcLinuxOS
Reason: the only linux distro were restriction is to the minimum.
more user friendly,easier for noobs than ubuntu in my opinion.

[faraaz]

For aam aadmi, Ubuntu 7.10 as of today is the best OS...why?? Its the easiest *nix to get up and running considering that the (perceived) difficulty is the biggest problem for alternative OS adoption today. Ubuntu's community, well documented solutions to 99% of the problems a newbie would face which are displayed prominently and excellent out of the box support for an insanely wide range of hardware make it the best *nix there is...for aam aadmi, like I said.

If you are talking about Servers..I'd say some sort of BSD or in my experience, Debian 4.0 Etch is pretty awesome as of now...like having sex with your wife of 20 yrs... :)

[summit.nayak]

all have some specialty or other,just pick what suits you the best.OR else just make a custom linux for you and enjoy.

Diversity doesn't mean competition.They all compliment each other.

i agree with him and would like to state that its all a matter of choice:D

[praka123]

First of all Linux does not represent all UNIX.infact GNU/Linux is a UNIX-Like Operating System.and to carry UNIX trademark u have to comply ur OS with http://www.opengroup.org standards and pay them for the license like apple did for OS X.

GNU (http://www.gnu.org)/Linux is the best UNIX-like Operating System as of today because of its Open Source architecture+the popularity and the support for the hardware and other extra features.

I'd have selected FreeBSD;but the community is themself locked and the distro are not novice-friendly imho.

the worst UNIX ever made is darwin (http://www.opensource.apple.com/) which is a messy codebase which is OS X of mac :rolleyes: OS X is sinking the good name of UNIX coz of the dirty hacks it uses to call it "idiot friendly" :p

Personally,I dont find Debian (http://www.debian.org) geeky and Ubuntu is just a small drop taken from the debian pool!I will always stick to Debian which is the best distro any time! :) note that it requires a "used to *nix" user to switch to Debian.

FOSS (http://www.fsf.org) nature of GNU/Linux is the basic cause of success.the organized way with a "lead" Linus who keeps the kernel fresh and neat and removes dirty hacks as much as possible.

One thing Linux kernel misses is a uniformed kernel API for developers to write drivers.this is due to different drivers which are needed to be corrected and devels are not interested at this moment I think.


Solaris(Open Solaris) (http://www.opensolaris.org) is one good alternative UNIX which is growing under the lead of Ian Murdock(founder of Debian).We may expect a good OS with Open Solaris in some time(remember,Project Indiana),I hope.

Just read a week or so back that forefather of UNIX,Multics is released under FOSS license!wait and watch if some thing good turns out :p and even read that multics is inherently superior to UNIX OS's.
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2007/11/multics-source-code-released.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/14/multics_source_code_released/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multics

[mehulved]

I'll Select FreeBSD(or any BSD) if you wanna do Command Line stuff only.
You hardly need to use CLI after initial set up in FreeBSD, if you're a normal desktop user.

[DigitalDude]

CentOS 4.6 :p

[The Unknown]

Fedora.

(after Version Core 6).

[Hitboxx]

Ah, again one of those petty quarrels., /me walks away...

[baccilus]

LinuxMint. The goodness of Ubuntu; the freshness of mint :-)

[T159]

BSD unix

Title should hav been Linux

[gary4gar]

All Os sucks:x

[faraaz]

Yeah...OS's are for pussies! Real men just use binary...:D

[T159]

Yeah...OS's are for pussies! Real men just use binary...:D

Binaries are for sissies :D

[Zeeshan Quireshi]

BSD unix

Title should hav been Linux
Both Linux and BSD are UNIX-Like OS'es .

But BSD is made from the Original Source of UNIX from AT&T
(Although after modifications 95% of Original UNIX Code was replaced with custom code at Berkeley)

Copyright 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. The patenting process took a mighty 25 Years .

Whereas Linux is a Complete Rewrite from scratch to Provide Unix-Like Functionality .

[mediator]

Both Linux and BSD are UNIX-Like OS'es .

But BSD is made from the Original Source of UNIX from AT&T
(Although after modifications 95% of Original UNIX Code was replaced with custom code at Berkeley)

The patenting process took a mighty 25 Years .

Whereas Linux is a Complete Rewrite from scratch to Provide Unix-Like Functionality .
There r 2 categories : Unix-like and unix-variant and BSD is a Unix-Variant!! There is a lotta difference! :)

[DigitalDude]

The patenting process took a mighty 25 Years .


Its not that the patenting process took that many years... lol

but every time something is copyrighted the year in which its did is indicated.

for eg. MS Windows has copyrighted code right from 1985.. that doesnt mean they were starting to do that for vista right from 1985...

[Zeeshan Quireshi]

There r 2 categories : Unix-like and unix-variant and BSD is a Unix-Variant!! There is a lotta difference! :)
That's why i noted that BSD is Derived from the Original Unix Source but it's not Unix just because the Berkeley people haven't paid the OpenGroup huge amounts of money to be Unix Certified .

Its not that the patenting process took that many years... lol

but every time something is copyrighted the year in which its did is indicated.

for eg. MS Windows has copyrighted code right from 1985.. that doesnt mean they were starting to do that for vista right from 1985... I know it didn't take 25 years . I meant that UC berkeley had actively developed BSD for 25 years(uptil 1994) and files patents continuously in these years .

[mediator]

That's why i noted that BSD is Derived from the Original Unix Source but it's not Unix just because the Berkeley people haven't paid the OpenGroup huge amounts of money to be Unix Certified .

I know it didn't take 25 years . I meant that UC berkeley had actively developed BSD for 25 years(uptil 1994) and files patents continuously in these years .
I dunno about money matters (gimme some links to pass some time), but still it is not 'Unix-like'. Read this small passage (http://www.bsdzone.org/) and then google for 'unix-variants'.

[infra_red_dude]

What Zeeshan is true but it doesn't apply to BSD and direct derivatives. This is coz the original UNIX was split into System V and 4.xBSD. While System V direct derivative is not longer existent today (and hence no "pure UNIX" today but only UNIX-system like and UNIX-varients), BSD is still available in the form of openbsd, freebsd etc. Hence, even without paying the opengroup anything BSD still enjoys the UNIX status coz it was one of the original "UNIX distro".

What you said applies to OS like Mac OS etc. If SUN pays the opengroup then OpenSolaris can be called as a UNIX-varient. But now its only a UNIX-System Like OS (same case with GNU/Linux distros).

[mediator]

Can u give some links about opensolaris being unix-like until and unless a moderate fee is paid?

[Zeeshan Quireshi]

What Zeeshan is true but it doesn't apply to BSD and direct derivatives. This is coz the original UNIX was split into System V and 4.xBSD. While System V direct derivative is not longer existent today (and hence no "pure UNIX" today but only UNIX-system like and UNIX-varients), BSD is still available in the form of openbsd, freebsd etc. Hence, even without paying the opengroup anything BSD still enjoys the UNIX status coz it was one of the original "UNIX distro".

What you said applies to OS like Mac OS etc. If SUN pays the opengroup then OpenSolaris can be called as a UNIX-varient. But now its only a UNIX-System Like OS (same case with GNU/Linux distros).
Yup that's what i meant that BSD is a fork of the Original Unix but it cannot label itself as UNIX(although it is) because the UNIX trademark is now owned by the OpenGroup http://www.opengroup.org/ and to label a product as UNIX you have to get it certified from The OpenGroup and pay heavy licensing fees which products like FreeBSD , netBSD and other BSD Derivatives cannot do .

Whereas apple got Max OS X Leopard UNIX Certified from The OpenGroup and it can label it's product as UNIX(even if it might be derivied from BSD)

@Mediator , same reason for OpenSolaris , it cannot call itself UNIX due to trademark restrictions .

[mediator]

^^I'm not referring to about "calling itself unix". I understand what 'unix certifiied' OS is. What we r talkin about is unix-variants. So if somehow canonical pays for that license, will ubuntu be called 'unix variant'?........or 'unix certified'? Is the source code derived from the original Unix that was developed at AT n T so as to be called a 'variant' remotely? Why is linux called unix-"like"? For what reason was linux created?

Lets stick to the true technical definition of unix-variant and not commercial/official meaning of it which I guess is corrupting the concepts and adding to the confusion!

I just tried to refresh my concepts after around 3 years and alas there I see so much damage being done on the net where linux is being called unix-variant on many new sites and some wiki pages etc! :oops:

[praka123]

^yes!thats sad!infact Linux is UNIX-like OS!there are no codes taken from Original unix apart from some ideas!

I donno why,but i feel opensolaris is going to be a big hit if they completed project indiana;i read in few intl forums that when opensolaris gets the debian like package management with Ian Murdock be the project leader,OpenSolaris can win many Linux aspirants!even Solaris servers are good for its stability!.even better,if OpenSOlaris kernel goes GPL3,Linux is finished! :D I mean,many developers will be moving to Open Solaris.

I liked FreeBSD for its stability,but it is definitely not a desktop Operating system;even with variants like pc-bsd :)

[Zeeshan Quireshi]

yup FreeBSD for servers and Ubuntu for Desktops i'd say .

@Mediator , mate that's what i meant too .

That BSD is a Unix-Variant whereas Linux is a Unix-Like OS .

I referred to both of them as Unix-Like just for the sake of simplicity and to highlight the fact that both of them provide almost the same functionality to the user .

[infra_red_dude]

^^^ Confusion arised coz of the thread title. Mebbe it shud've read: UNIX/-Like/-Varient Wars!

[mediator]

yup FreeBSD for servers and Ubuntu for Desktops i'd say .

@Mediator , mate that's what i meant too .

That BSD is a Unix-Variant whereas Linux is a Unix-Like OS .

I referred to both of them as Unix-Like just for the sake of simplicity and to highlight the fact that both of them provide almost the same functionality to the user .
I was just pointing out to ur statement in post #17 (http://www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=722307&postcount=17)

Both Linux and BSD are UNIX-Like OS'es .

But neways, I see in many forums that many people are calling linux as unix-variant. People read this false stuff and then keep telling others. I hope u understand. :)

Njoy this one (http://www.zoomcities.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=5272)!

@infra : I guess "*nix wars" wud be appropriate? :p

I dunno about MacOsX's history, may be some one can gimme a nice link and if MacOSX is truly Unix or even a variant??

[infra_red_dude]

But neways, I see in many forums that many people are calling linux as unix-variant. People read this false stuff and then keep telling others. I hope u understand. :)
Yes, its wrong to call Linux as a UNIX-varient; rather it would be just like saying that Linux code is copied from UNIX!!!! Linux was/is and will always be a UNIX-like OS not a UNIX-varient.

@infra : I guess "*nix wars" wud be appropriate? :p
Perfect! Guess I tend to take the longer route always! :D

I dunno about MacOsX's history, may be some one can gimme a nice link and if MacOSX is truly Unix or even a variant??
Mac OS X uses the Darwin kernel; which is a BSD based kernel. Actually, it is a BSD kernel with most of the restrictions removed so that normal user has a lot of flexibility. They implemented suid which can be thot of somewhere between the UNIX and Windows permission system. It will not lock you like UNIX-like systems where for every admin task (installing new devices etc.) requires admin rights which it also not liberal like Windows which allows anyone to modify system files.

Other than that not much of a change. Just a few tweaks to make it comptible with the Aqua UI and the Quartz compositor. In fact, Darwin can be used with GNOME/KDE etc. just like any Linux distro.

I'd say 95% BSD code has been retained (most of the scheduling/network stack and imp. stuff has been retained) - no doubt, coz it sports a very superior arch.

Head here for more info on GNU/Darwin: http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ (This is not endorsed by apple, btw).

EDIT:


Njoy this one (http://www.zoomcities.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=5272)!
Haha... nice one there.. The people there are the dumbest fools I've ever seen!!! Everyone pretending to know the correct difference! I see only one or two sane people clarifying things.

See this:

Aside from the spelling and what darkfate has mentioned, Linux is the GUI version of Unix.. Sort off

:)) :)) I feel like nominating this guy for being the dumbest admin!

[mediator]

Thanx man! Will do some full-fledged research some day! ;) and yeah that link is phun...hehe!! :)

[Zeeshan Quireshi]

@mediator , i called both Linux and BSD Unix-Like OS'es .

Well BSD is a unix-variant so it can fit into the general category of UNIX-Like OS'es(that is OS'es that functino like UNIX , although BSD is a Unix-Variant but i think it's acceptable to call it Unix-Like just for the sake of comparison) .

I did not call Linux a Unix-Variant , instead i called BSD a Unix-Like OS .

[axxo]

+1 for Solaris

[mediator]

@mediator , i called both Linux and BSD Unix-Like OS'es .

Well BSD is a unix-variant so it can fit into the general category of UNIX-Like OS'es(that is OS'es that functino like UNIX , although BSD is a Unix-Variant but i think it's acceptable to call it Unix-Like just for the sake of comparison) .

I did not call Linux a Unix-Variant , instead i called BSD a Unix-Like OS .
Thats ok man, I'm not fighting but just being clear. :)
Many times linux is also called unix etc for the sake of simplicity. But is it really simplicity? IMO, it adds much more to the confusion.

Can u call VISTA => windows like or any distro of linux => linux like? What r Netbsd, freebsd, openbsd......BSd variants or BSD like systems?

I'm not accusing that u called "Linux a Unix-variant", but simply pointing out to the fact that how much corruption is being done to the minds of the innocent noobies! As pointed out by @IRD, even the 'admin' and fellow moderators crack jokes to brighten our mood in that link I gave!! Can u call Unix=linux+GUI? You see the damage has been done to the highest topology of the forums!

Besides if u need to compare, then u oughta be precise! Isn't it?

Today I wasn't feeling like going out (slob), so I read sumwhere (http://sticklebackplastic.com/2007/11/30/An+unexpected+UNIX.aspx) that Windows NT 4 is POSIX complaint. But is windows NT, a Unix?

I wont go for official definitions as I guess patents, laws and all kinda crap is really doing a global e-damage and concepts going kapoot. So I was just pointing out to the technical concept. The rest is ur own wish.... :)

[MetalheadGautham]

anybody here who actually USED solaris? Not the OpenSolaris, but the SunSolaris that comes with Sun UltraSPARC Machines ?

[mediator]

^^ASk Yamaraj (http://www.thinkdigit.com/forum/member.php?u=5862). He uses solaris!

[MetalheadGautham]

^^ASk Yamaraj (http://www.thinkdigit.com/forum/member.php?u=5862). He uses solaris!
one rare kind. Is it in a UltraSPARC machine or an OpenSPARC machine ? If Dark Lord thinks Mac Pro users are godly, then I think UltraSPARC guys are even more godly. I heard those workstations are really blazing fast and super effitient.

[Zeeshan Quireshi]

one rare kind. Is it in a UltraSPARC machine or an OpenSPARC machine ? If Dark Lord thinks Mac Pro users are godly, then I think UltraSPARC guys are even more godly. I heard those workstations are really blazing fast and super effitient.
My School's Server is a very very old SPARC machine and it still handles the load very efficiently , about 40-50 clients at the same time .

[MetalheadGautham]

My School's Server is a very very old SPARC machine and it still handles the load very efficiently , about 40-50 clients at the same time .
wow ! I just got my hands on Solaris 10. Do you think its worth installing ?
And whats the cost of SPARC Processors in India ?
Is it true that OpenSPARC, the only OSS Processor, is Dirt Cheap in the market due to being OSS ?

[Zeeshan Quireshi]

wow ! I just got my hands on Solaris 10. Do you think its worth installing ?
And whats the cost of SPARC Processors in India ?
Is it true that OpenSPARC, the only OSS Processor, is Dirt Cheap in the market due to being OSS ?
Mate OpenSPARC is only the implementation part of the UltraSPARC T2 processor that has been made OSS , otherwise it's the same as UltraSPARC .

I don't think any OpenSPARC(custom modified UltraSPARC T2) is available in the market . Only the UltraSPARC processors from SUN are available and some from Fujitsu i suppose .

@metal , my school server is an old SPARC , it's not even an UltraSPARC .

[T159]

wow ! I just got my hands on Solaris 10. Do you think its worth installing ?
And whats the cost of SPARC Processors in India ?
Is it true that OpenSPARC, the only OSS Processor, is Dirt Cheap in the market due to being OSS ?
thats some serious stuff. Leave it for administrators, desktop users dont need it.

[Zeeshan Quireshi]

Although you can use Solaris 10 as a Desktop OS for Software Development .

[subratabera]

Although you can use Solaris 10 as a Desktop OS for Software Development . Or...for learning.

Well, I've installed it on a spare machine for some time. It has two DMs. GNOME & CDE. GNOME has all the utilities as in any linux distro. But CDE is different. Its just a basic no nonsense DM.

You can install Solaris x86 version on any compatible hardware but I think dual booting will be a tough nut to crack. you can configure "zones" in Solaris which works much like virtual machines (heard it from a friend).

Now, I am thinking of installing it in my Ubuntu box under VirtualBox which supports installing Solaris type os.

Let's hope for the best.

[MetalheadGautham]

Ok guys, I got the Solaris 10 DVD a few days back in PC Quest January issue. Hoping to make the best of it.... or may be not. I may just end up leaving it as a trophy, for my System sucks at running uber cool OSes in their full glory.

[Zeeshan Quireshi]

1 Gig might be fine to run Solaris 10 , try it .

[infra_red_dude]

1G Solaris 10? More than enuf. Just go ahead. You can use the bundled CDE or install xfce/gnome/kde whatever with compiz on that too...